ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2023
A Dose of Reality About Dose-Response Relationships.
Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Adherence Conundrum of Sleep Restriction Therapy for Insomnia.Journal of sleep research · 2026Trial
- Admission ECG-derived resting heart rate and in-hospital mortality after acute stroke: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Molecular dynamics simulation in traditional Chinese medicine research: from molecular mechanisms to multiscale validation.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Review
- Concussions and risk of a subsequent traffic crash: retrospective cohort analysis in Ontario, Canada.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Association of H2RAs exposure with 30-day mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction in MIMIC-IV: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Topical anti-inflammatory potential of ethanol extract ofOpen veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of neurofeedback training efficacy and neural mechanisms in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Seeing the Truth About Double Blinding.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Observational research can be strengthened by examining potential dose-response relationships that correlate a clinical intervention with a patient outcome. Despite being a classic criterion for establishing causality, dose-response testing can be difficult to interpret in clinical medicine due to multiple diverse pitfalls. This review introduces a cautionary framework for investigators considering dose-response relationships in observational research to support evidence-based medicine. Each pitfall is illustrated with a specific example relevant when analyzing a dose-response relationship. Several pitfalls stem from faulty interpretation including confounding by indication and fallible range selection. Additional pitfalls relate to improper analysis including fitting a nonlinear model and misclassification error. Further pitfalls arise in special situations including subjective self-report and artifacts from survival bias. These caveats are common sources of misunderstanding in analyses that examine the link between varying exposures and the intensity of clinical outcomes. Awareness of specific pitfalls, we suggest, might help advance the conduct, application, and translation of dose-response relationships in observational research to inform evidence-based medical care.
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.