ReviewProblemy endokrinologii2026
[Prognostic research in endocrinology: design and common errors].
Review in Problemy endokrinologii, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article provides a conceptual overview of the methodology and design of prognostic research. It presents cohort studies as the most suitable design for prognostic investigations and discusses in detail the distinctions between traditional etio logical cohort studies and those primarily aimed at predicting outcomes. The article reviews examples of prognostic studies that focus on predicting gestational diabetes mellitus, renal failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus, osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women, outcomes of infertility treatment in women with elevated follicle-stimulating hormone levels, and survival in patients with adrenocortical carcinoma. The importance of adhering to the methodological standards outlined in the STROBE and TRIPOD guidelines is emphasized. It also highlights the need to avoid common design and analytical pitfalls, such as measuring predictors after the outcome has occurred or using ROC analysis without developing a multivari able prediction model. Particular attention is given to employing appropriate statistical methods, as a lack of understanding of these methods may lead to biased inferences and diminish the scientific value of the published research. Incorporating well-designed prognostic cohort studies and rigorous analytical approaches will enhance clinical practice and strengthen the evidence base in modern endocrinology.
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.