ArticleCureus2024
Harnessing Reliable Evidence in the Post-COVID Era: A Practice Guide to Navigating the Ocean of Medical Literature.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
The reliability and relevance of medical literature are significant concerns in the post-COVID-19 era, where misinformation and disinformation are serious threats. This practice guide provides an overview of practical strategies to appraise the reliability of research publications critically. These strategies include critically appraising the effectiveness and constraints of various approaches to disseminating medical information, choosing appropriate medical literature resources, navigating library databases, screening the literature from the search, and screening individual publications. We also discuss the importance of considering study limitations and the relevance of the results in research or use in the medical arena. In-depth, critical appraisal of medical or clinical research evidence requires expertise, insight into research methodologies, and a grasp of issues in each field. By harnessing the wealth of reliable and relevant information available in medical literature through the above steps, we can alleviate potentially misleading information and stay at the forefront of our respective fields.
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.