Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34337310›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2021

Development of a Methodological Quality Criteria List for Observational Studies: The Observational Study Quality Evaluation.

Marjan Drukker, Irene Weltens, Carmen F M van Hooijdonk, Emma Vandenberk, Maarten Bak

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Cognitive Profile in Autism and ADHD: A Meta-Analysis of Performance on the WAIS-IV and WISC-V.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2024
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. A review of the sterile processing department's reprocessing of surgical instruments.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Marjan DrukkerSchool for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Irene WeltensSchool for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Carmen F M van HooijdonkSchool for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Emma VandenberkSchool for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Maarten BakSchool for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

case-control studycohort studycross-sectional studymethodological quality criteria listobservational studiesrisk of bias

Identifiers

PMID34337310
PMCPMC8317224

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.