Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32352422›Full record

ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2020

Scientific evidence and guidelines in occupational medicine.

Alfonso Cristaudo

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in La Medicina del lavoro, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alfonso CristaudoAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana Professore a Contratto Scuola di Specializzazione Medicina del Lavoro dell'Università di Pisa. a.cristaudo@gmail.com.
University of Pisa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past, science has had a conflicting relationship with the philosophy from which it has detached itself due to the scientific method of Galileo Galilei, but anti-scientific atti-tudes and thoughts still persist in every field of knowledge. Occupational Medicine, like other medical disciplines, increasingly needs to have a scientific foundation that guaran-tees evidence and appropriateness for its varied professional activities. Guidance tools for occupational physicians and, in particular, the Guidelines of Scientific Societies repre-sent an indispensable contribution to correct professional practice. In many countries, in addition to the International Society of Reference and International Commission of Occu-pational Health (ICOH), there are National Societies of Occupational Medicine and many of these, such as the Italian Society of Occupational Medicine, regularly publish policy tools and guidelines for the occupational physician. It is not always possible to base the Guidelines in the field of occupational medicine exclusively on consolidated scientific ev-idence but it is still necessary to increase research and publications aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of specific interventions in the preventive, clinical and rehabilitative field of occupational medicine in order to guide occupational physicians to an increasingly appropriate practice. In Italy, a recent law allows the production of Guidelines that partially exempt criminal lia-bility for inexperience through a System of Guidelines produced by accredited Scientific Societies.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineOccupational MedicineItalyPractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID32352422
PMCPMC7810012
OpenAlexW3022432231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.