Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41246627›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

I2 Statistic as the Selection Bias Test: Trial Effect Estimates in Relation to Identified Bias Levels.

Steffen Mickenautsch, Veerasamy Yengopal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Steffen MickenautschFaculty of Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, ZAF.
Veerasamy YengopalFaculty of Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, ZAF.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study aimed to investigate the association between selection bias, established by the use of the I

methodsRCTs reporting computable outcomes and baseline data were selected from published systematic review reports that, in turn, were identified through a systematic literature search in PubMed up to 2024. All RCTs were tested for selection bias using the trial-adjusted, simulated comparator trial (SCT)-based I

resultsA total of 332 RCTs, published from 1985 to 2023 in various medical specialties, were tested. Test applicability was limited by the low quality of RCT reporting. 'Low' selection bias was identified in 202 RCTs and 'high' selection bias in 130 RCTs. The estimation of selection bias levels within pre-specified I

conclusionThe trial-adjusted, SCT-based I

Indexed as

bias testclinical trial appraisalrandomised control trialsselection biassystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID41246627
PMCPMC12619114

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.