ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2023
Tips and tricks for how to become a good reviewer.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the reporting practices in recent randomised controlled trials published inJournal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Tips from an expert panel on the development of a clinical research protocol.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review is an essential process to ensure that scientific articles meet high standards of methodology, ethics and quality. The peer-review process is a part of the academic mission for physicians in the university setting. The work of reviewers is of great value for authors, as it gives constructive criticism and improves manuscript quality before publication. Often, however, reviews are of suboptimal quality. Usually, reviewers do not receive formal training either on how to perform a review or on the peer-review process. In addition, it is generally believed that experienced authors are great reviewers, but this may not always be true. The overarching goal of a review is to make the manuscript better; to help the authors. The purpose of this article is to offer relevant suggestions and provide a checklist on how to perform a useful review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37792083What 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.