SynthesisBMC neurology2020
Routinely collected patient data in neurology research: a systematic mapping review.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Community prevalence and dyad disease pattern of multimorbidity in China and India: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- Prevalence of white matter hyperintensities and radiological cerebral small vessel disease: an insight from routinely collected data.BMC neurology · 2025Article
- Building a cumulative science of memory development.Developmental review : DR · 2024Article
- Classification of neurologic outcomes from medical notes using natural language processing.Expert systems with applications · 2023Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis review focuses on neurology research which uses routinely collected data. The number of such studies is growing alongside the expansion of data collection. We aim to gain a broad picture of the scope of how routine healthcare data have been utilised.
methodsThis study follows a systematic mapping review approach which does not make a judgement on the quality of the papers included in the review, thereby enabling a complete overview of the field.
resultsOf 4481 publications retrieved, 386 met the eligibility criteria for this study. These publications covered a wide range of conditions, but the majority were based on one or only a small number of neurological conditions. In particular, publications concerned with three discrete areas of neurological practice - multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy/seizure and Parkinson's disease - accounted for 60% of the total. MS was the focus of the highest proportion of eligible studies (35%), yet in the recent Global Burden of Neurological Disease study it ranks only 14th out of 15 neurological disorders for DALY rates. In contrast, migraine is the neurological disorder with the highest ranking of DALYs globally (after stroke) and yet it was represented by only 4% of eligible studies.
conclusionThis review shows that there is a disproportionately large body of literature pertaining to relatively rare disorders, and a correspondingly small body of literature describing more common conditions. Therefore, there is potential for future research to redress this balance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.