ArticleInternational journal of trichology
A Critic of Retrospective Multicenter Studies in Clinical Trichology.
Article in International journal of trichology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, retrospective multicenter studies have gained particular popularity with trichologists, and become a practice of some groups of authors for cranking up the number of papers on their resumes. Multicenter collaboration can result in higher rates of patient enrolment than single-center trials, thereby generating larger studies of shorter duration, while offering the opportunity for networking. A single-center trial is conducted according to a single protocol and at a single site, while multicenter trials are conducted according to a single protocol but at different locations, and conducted by various researchers. Differences between the two include variations in sample size, time of patient recruitment, costs, presence of bias, validity, and center and investigator characteristics. However, the validity of multicenter research can be questioned. A single center with a high number of patients, interventions, and large experience is superior to a collective of a large number of centers with low number of patients, interventions, and little experience at each center. Multicenter studies are at risk of inconsistent diagnosis and heterogeneity among centers and populations. Finally, by their nature, multicenter studies rely purely on local expert opinion to generate findings. If the centers participating in the study can be shown to be representative of the group or area of knowledge under study then content validity can be assumed. The practice though of selecting centers based on networking means there is a responsibility to prove and justify the selection procedures used. Hence, how a center is chosen for its competence is defined must be somewhat arbitrary, and the results would then represent that particular group's opinions at a given point in time. In conclusion, when interpreting results from retrospective multicenter clinical research, bias and traps among the result should be detected according to who performs it, which inclusion indication criteria is involved, what the target is, and how it is carried out.
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.