ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2023
Criteria for selection and classification of studies in medical events.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comments on "Criteria for selection and classification of studies in medical events".Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of study methodology and evaluation type on the selection of studies during the presentation of scientific events.
methodsA prospective, observational, transversal approach was applied to a cohort of studies that were submitted for presentation at the 2021 Brazilian Breast Cancer Symposium. Three forms of criteria (CR) were presented. CR1 was based on six criteria (method, ethics, design, originality, promotion, and social contribution); CR2 graded the studies from 0 to 10 for each study, and CR3 was based on five criteria (presentation, method, originality, scientific knowledge, and social contribution). To evaluate the item correlation, Cronbach's alpha and factorial analysis were performed. For the evaluation of differences between the tests, we used the Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn tests. To determine the differences in the study classifications, we used the Friedman test and Namenyi's all-pairs comparisons.
resultsA total of 122 studies were evaluated. There was also a good correlation with the items concerning criterion 1 (α=0.730) and 3 (α=0.937). Evaluating CR1 methodology, study design and social contribution (p=0.741) represents the main factor and CR3 methodology, and the scientific contribution (p=0.994) represents the main factor. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed differences in the results (p<0.001) for all the criteria that were used [CR1-CR2 (p<0.001), CR1-CR3 (p<0.001), and CR2-CR3 (p=0.004)]. The Friedman test showed differences in the ranking of the studies (p<0.001) for all studies (p<0.01).
conclusionMethodologies that use multiple criteria show good correlation and should be taken into account when ranking the best studies.
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.