Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38384650›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Harnessing Reliable Evidence in the Post-COVID Era: A Practice Guide to Navigating the Ocean of Medical Literature.

CheowPeng Ooi, Sivalingam Nalliah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

CheowPeng OoiInstitute for Development, Research and Innovation, International Medical University, Bukit Jalil, MYS.
Sivalingam NalliahDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, International Medical University, Seremban, MYS.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

critical appraisaldisinformationevidenceintegritymedical literaturemisinformationpatient safety and quality improvementprofessional and research ethicsreliabilityresearch methodology

Identifiers

PMID38384650
PMCPMC10881231

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.