ReviewBrain : a journal of neurology2023
Observational studies of treatment effectiveness in neurology.
Review in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic GCS Trajectories and Mortality Risk in ICU Patients with Stroke: A Multicenter, Age-Stratified Study.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Neurogenesis and Neuroinflammation in Dialogue: Mapping Gaps, Modulating Microglia, Rewiring Aging.Cells · 2026Review
- Managing reactivation of multiple sclerosis during treatment with natalizumab.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026Article
- Treatment De-escalation in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: An Observational Study.CNS drugs · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The capacity and power of data from cohorts, registries and randomized trials to provide answers to contemporary clinical questions in neurology has increased considerably over the past two decades. Novel sophisticated statistical methods are enabling us to harness these data to guide treatment decisions, but their complexity is making appraisal of clinical evidence increasingly demanding. In this review, we discuss several methodological aspects of contemporary research of treatment effectiveness in observational data in neurology, aimed at academic neurologists and analysts specializing in outcomes research. The review discusses specifics of the sources of observational data and their key features. It focuses on the limitations of observational data and study design, as well as statistical approaches aimed to overcome these limitations. Among the examples of leading clinical themes typically studied with analyses of observational data, the review discusses methodological approaches to comparative treatment effectiveness, development of diagnostic criteria and definitions of clinical outcomes. Finally, this review provides a brief summary of key points that will help clinical audience critically evaluate design and analytical aspects of studies of disease outcomes using observational data.
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.