Evidence mapPaperPMID 31338426Full record

ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2019

Evidence synthesis in prognosis research.

Thomas P A Debray, Valentijn M T de Jong, Karel G M Moons, Richard D Riley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Long-Term PMLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

4 authors.

Thomas P A Debray *1Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 100, Utrecht, 3584 CG The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1790-2719
Valentijn M T de Jong *1Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 100, Utrecht, 3584 CG The Netherlands.
Karel G M Moons1Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 100, Utrecht, 3584 CG The Netherlands.
Richard D Riley3Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past few years, evidence synthesis has become essential to investigate and improve the generalizability of medical research findings. This strategy often involves a meta-analysis to formally summarize quantities of interest, such as relative treatment effect estimates. The use of meta-analysis methods is, however, less straightforward in prognosis research because substantial variation exists in research objectives, analysis methods and the level of reported evidence. We present a gentle overview of statistical methods that can be used to summarize data of prognostic factor and prognostic model studies. We discuss how aggregate data, individual participant data, or a combination thereof can be combined through meta-analysis methods. Recent examples are provided throughout to illustrate the various methods.

Indexed as

IPDMeta-analysisPredictionPrognosisValidation

Identifiers

PMID31338426
PMCPMC6621956

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.