ArticleCureus2025
The Limits of Inductive Reasoning for Clinical Evidence Appraisal: A Simulation Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Review
- Article
- Selection Bias Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials Rated as Low Bias Using Risk of Bias, Version 2 (RoB2) Tool.Cureus · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background To establish the possible likelihood of a body of evidence, inductively judged to be of 'low bias risk'/'high-quality' according to a limited set of appraisal criteria, of actually being error-free. Methods A total of 45 simulation trials were generated and randomly assigned to 0-5 errors out of a total of 65 error domains. The trials were then appraised for errors with a simulated appraisal tool consisting of five pre-specified error domains. Trial appraisal yielded either true positive, true negative, false negative or false positive results. From these values, the negative likelihood ratio (-LR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed. -LR computation was repeated 25 times, each with newly generated random values for all 45 trials. The individual results of all 25 runs were statistically pooled. The pooled -LR result with 95% CI was interpreted as how likely a 'low bias risk'/'high-quality' rated body of evidence is actually error-free. Results The pooled -LR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80 - 0.88, I
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.