ArticlePeerJ2019
Time arrow in published clinical studies/trials indexed in MEDLINE: a systematic analysis of retrospective vs. prospective study design, from 1960 to 2017.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Risk Factors for Postoperative Delayed Perforation Following Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in predicting the results of open-heart surgery: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- The dilemma of consent for AI in healthcare.Surgery · 2024Article
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
Clinical studies/trials are experiments or observations on human subjects considered by the scientific community the most appropriate instrument to answer specific research questions on interventions on health outcomes. The time-line of the observations might be focused on a single time point or to follow time, backward or forward, in the so called, respectively, retrospective and prospective study design. Since the retrospective approach has been criticized for the possible sources of errors due to bias and confounding, we aimed this study to assess if there is a prevalence of retrospective vs. prospective design in the clinical studies/trials by querying MEDLINE. Our results on a sample of 1,438,872 studies/trials, (yrs 1960-2017), support a prevalence of retrospective, respectively 55% vs. 45%. To explain this result, a random sub-sample of studies where the country of origin was reported (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.