Textbooks and other publications on controlled clinical trials, 1948 to 1983.

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.

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.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The (Harry) Gold standard: angina, suggestion and the path to the 'double-blind' test and clinical pharmacology. Part 3: the double blind and the rise of 'clinical pharmacology'.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2023
   Article
2. Medical statistics, Austin Bradford Hill, and a celebration of 40 years of Statistics in Medicine.Statistics in medicine · 2021
   Article
3. John Henry Gaddum's 1940 guidance on controlled clinical trials.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as