Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33543746›Full record

ArticleGenetics and molecular biology2021

Science based public policies: Lessons from Covid19 on the use of randomized trials.

Natalia Pasternak Taschner, Carlos Orsi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics and molecular biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Natalia Pasternak TaschnerInstituto Questão de Ciência, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7559-602X
Carlos OrsiInstituto Questão de Ciência, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic gave rise to a spirit of methodological anarchy in some fronts of biomedical research, embraced by some under the excuses of urgency and time restraints. This movement, however, comes at the same time when social sciences begin to recognize the value and soundness of the clinical research rationale - the need for randomization, of fair comparisons between intervention groups, the humility of acknowledging ignorance and accepting uncertainty, these last two imperatives usually subsumed under the principle of "equipoise".

Identifiers

PMID33543746
PMCPMC7876434

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.