CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 366Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Interpreting Results and Drawing Conclusions

Schünemann, Holger J, Oxman, Andrew D, Vist, Gunn E, Higgins, Julian PT, Deeks, Jonathan J, Glasziou, Paul, Guyatt, Gordon H·2008·Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
DOI 10.1002/9780470712184.ch12
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Assessing the quality of a body of evidence Issues in applicability Interpreting results of statistical analyses Interpreting results from dichotomous outcomes (including numbers needed to treat) Interpreting results from continuous outcomes (including standardized mean differences) Drawing conclusions Chapter information References

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9780470712184.ch12

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–366 of 366

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Higgins, J. P., Deeks, J. J., Glasziou, P., & Guyatt, G. H.
Affiliations
  • Instituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena (IT)
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
  • MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • McMaster University (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-09-22
Pages
359-387
DOI
10.1002/9780470712184.ch12
OpenAlex
W4205195518
Cited by
366
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 55
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
evidence quality assessment, applicability, statistical interpretation, binary outcomes, number needed to treat, continuous outcomes, standardized mean difference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review