Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35585134›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2022

Sensitivity analysis in clinical trials: three criteria for a valid sensitivity analysis.

Sameer Parpia, Tim P Morris, Mark R Phillips, Charles C Wykoff, David H Steel, Lehana Thabane, Mohit Bhandari, Varun Chaudhary, Retina Evidence Trials InterNational Alliance (R.E.T.I.N.A.) Study Group

Abstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A review on the utility of sensitivity analysis in trauma research: Methods and challenges from recent trauma studies.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sameer ParpiaDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Tim P MorrisMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Mark R PhillipsDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0923-261X
Charles C WykoffRetina Consultants of Texas (Retina Consultants of America), Houston, TX, USA.
David H SteelSunderland Eye Infirmary, Sunderland, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8734-3089
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0355-9734
Mohit BhandariDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9608-4808
Varun ChaudharyDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. vchaudh@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-9988-4146
Retina Evidence Trials InterNational Alliance (R.E.T.I.N.A.) Study Group

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Identifiers

PMID35585134
PMCPMC9581998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.