ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2024
Higher-order evidence.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combining Observational Studies to Reduce Multiple Biases.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Risk functions with outcome measurement error.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- A minimal nontrivial example of higher-order evidence.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Higher-order evidence is evidence about evidence. Epidemiologic examples of higher-order evidence include the settings where the study data constitute first-order evidence and estimates of misclassification comprise the second-order evidence (e.g., sensitivity, specificity) of a binary exposure or outcome collected in the main study. While sampling variability in higher-order evidence is typically acknowledged, higher-order evidence is often assumed to be free of measurement error (e.g., gold standard measures). Here we provide two examples, each with multiple scenarios where second-order evidence is imperfectly measured, and this measurement error can either amplify or attenuate standard corrections to first-order evidence. We propose a way to account for such imperfections that requires third-order evidence. Further illustrations and exploration of how higher-order evidence impacts results of epidemiologic studies is warranted.
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.