ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2021
Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glymphatic dysfunction as a potential mechanistic link to cognitive ımpairment in Behçet's disease: a hypothesis.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Bidirectional EEG Neurofeedback of Sensorimotor Beta Oscillations Reveals Asymmetric Modulation and Strategy-Dependent Learning.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Advancing clinical trial designing, reporting, and publishing.Reumatologia · 2026Article
- P Value Reporting and Reliability in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Primer for Readers and Investigators.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Ethics statements in Rheumatology journals: present practices and future directions.Rheumatology international · 2024Article
- Credibility of theJournal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- What does artificial intelligence mean in rheumatology?Archives of rheumatology · 2024Review
- Data-Driven Hypothesis Generation in Clinical Research: What We Learned from a Human Subject Study?Medical research archives · 2024Article
- Data-driven hypothesis generation among inexperienced clinical researchers: A comparison of secondary data analyses with visualization (VIADS) and other tools.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Data-driven hypothesis generation among inexperienced clinical researchers: A comparison of secondary data analyses with visualization (VIADS) and other tools.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- How do clinical researchers generate data-driven scientific hypotheses? Cognitive events using think-aloud protocol.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Conducting and Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).
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.