ArticleSignificance (Oxford, England)2022
Randomisation can do many things - but it cannot "fail".
Article in Significance (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nutrition users' guides: RCTs part 1 - structured guide for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trials that address therapy or prevention questions.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2024Review
- Causal models and causal modelling in obesity: foundations, methods and evidence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Undisclosed outcome switching, undisclosed analysis switching, inappropriate rounding, and selective reporting render paper "Effectiveness of a minimally processed food‑based nutritional counselling intervention on weight gain in overweight pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial" unreliable.European journal of nutrition · 2023Article
- Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Among Individuals with Excess Weight: Weight Trajectory Effects.Current diabetes reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although randomisation has long been seen as crucial to reaching reliable insights from data, it is still falling victim to some peculiar - and troublesome - misconceptions.
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.