Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31492940›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord2019

Should trials that are highly vulnerable to bias be excluded from systematic reviews?

L A Harvey, M P Dijkers

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. The Worldwide Prevalence of Internet Addiction among Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Insufficient Evidence to RecommendNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

L A HarveyUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. spinalcord@iscos.org.uk.
M P DijkersDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Publication BiasSystematic Reviews as TopicClinical Trials as TopicHumansSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID31492940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.