Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32373717›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2020

Reporting guideline checklists are not quality evaluation forms: they are guidance for writing.

Patricia Logullo, Angela MacCarthy, Shona Kirtley, Gary S Collins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Machine learning prediction models in orthopedic surgery: A systematic review in transparent reporting.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Toolkits for implementing and evaluating digital health: A systematic review of rigor and reporting.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Patricia LogulloUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Sciences University of Oxford Oxford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8708-7003
Angela MacCarthyUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Sciences University of Oxford Oxford UK.
Shona KirtleyUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Sciences University of Oxford Oxford UK.
Gary S CollinsUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Sciences University of Oxford Oxford UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895Cancer Research UK 27294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

4‐6MesH

Identifiers

PMID32373717
PMCPMC7196677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.