The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Interpreting Results and Drawing Conclusions
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“We used the GRADE approach to interpret findings (Schünemann 2008) and used the GRADE profiler to import data from Review Manager 5 (RevMan) to create 'Summary of findings' tables.”
From Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders. (2017) · cites this paper as Schünemann 2008
In the citing paper
“The degree of confidence in the estimate of effect across studies was assessed using GRADEpro and the GRADE approach (Guyatt 2008; Schunemann 2008, Schunemann 2009).”
From Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (2012) · cites this paper as Schunemann 2008
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Self-citationAudit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485
Self-citationImamura, F., O’Connor, L., Ye, Z., Mursu, J., Hayashino, Y., Bhupathiraju, S. N., & Forouhi, N. G. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h3576 · Cited by 977
Imamura, F., O’Connor, L., Ye, Z., Mursu, J., Hayashino, Y., Bhupathiraju, S. N., & Forouhi, N. G. (2016) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-h3576rep · Cited by 968
Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview
Singh, J. A., Wells, G. A., Christensen, R., Ghogomu, E. T., Maxwell, L. J., MacDonald, J. K., Filippini, G., Skoetz, N., Francis, D., Lopes, L. C., et al. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008794.pub2 · Cited by 878
Self-citation
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
- 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
- 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
