Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36821014›Full record

ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2023

New Frontiers in Prevention Research Models: Commentary on the Special Issue.

Phillip K Wood

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2023. 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

1 author.

Phillip K WoodDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, 200 South 7th Street, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA. phillipkwood@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5802-3948

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Models considered in the current special issue represent valuable additions to the statistical toolbox of prevention researchers for many types of research questions and designs. Their appropriate use, however, depends on critical evaluation relative to previously existing techniques. This evaluation includes (a.) model choice involving "right-sizing" of the model relative to the amount and quality of data at hand, (b.) examination of the external validity of identified associations relative to observed or latent subgroups, (c.) confirmation of the reasonableness of the functional form assumed by the model, and (d.) identification of influential or outlying observations which unduly affect model fit or parameter estimates. Models in this issue allow for testing of new types of hypotheses in prevention research, and can constitute counterarguments to existing statistical practice. These models may, however, in turn be the object of critical examination of counterarguments a reasonable skeptic may offer.

Indexed as

Assumption checkingGrowth curvesModel comparisonStatistical methodsStructural equation modeling

Identifiers

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.