Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40140142›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2025

Evidence triangulation in health research.

Sirena Gutierrez, M Maria Glymour, George Davey Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. BMJ mental health · 2026
    Article
  3. Cross-national comparison of the association between adult child educational attainment and older parents' functional health.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Scientific knowledge about dementia: From the Global South to the world.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sirena GutierrezDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th St, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9201-698X
M Maria GlymourDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th St, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9644-3081
George Davey SmithMedical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. pa-ieudirector@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1407-8314

Funding

Building an unbiased pooled cohort for the study of lifecourse social and vascular determinants of Alzheimer's Disease and Related DisordersR01AG072681 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GLYMOUR, MEDELLENA MARIA, ZEKI AL HAZZOURI, ADINA · 2021 to 2025
$4.0M
Racial Disparities in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias: The Role of School Segregation and Experiences of DiscriminationF31AG081071 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GUTIERREZ, SIRENA CELESTE · 2023 to 2024
$81k
Medical Research Centre MC_UU_00032/01NIA NIH HHS F31 AG081071NIA NIH HHS R01 AG072681NIA NIH HHS R01AG072681
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many important questions about influences on clinical and public health outcomes, no single study can provide a decisive answer. The perfect study-a large, diverse, well-conducted trial randomizing all relevant versions of a treatment and comprehensively tracking all relevant health outcomes-is never feasible. Instead, we must draw conclusions by piecing together evidence from multiple imperfect studies. A systematic framework for combining disparate, complementary sources of evidence is emerging. We introduce this framework, called evidence triangulation; summarize key approaches based on delineating likely biases due to confounding, measurement, and selection; and review some methods for combining evidence. We illustrate the issues using the example of estimating the effects of alcohol use on dementia. The central tenet of evidence triangulation is to identify the most important weaknesses for any given study approach (and for each specific study applying that approach) and, if necessary, to identify which new sources of evidence that do not share these weaknesses are required. Almost certainly, the new studies will have weaknesses, but when results are consistent across studies that rest on different assumptions, and for which biases should be unrelated, the conclusions are on much sturdier ground.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEvidence-Based MedicineResearch DesignBiasDementiaHumansCross-context comparisonsInstrumental variablesMendelian randomizationNatural experimentsNegative control studiesQuantitative bias analysisRCTsTriangulation

Identifiers

PMID40140142
PMCPMC12304027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.