response to the publication by ueberall and mueller-schwefe
Clicks: 139
ID: 214980
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
139 views
28 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #140 of 145 articles by views in waste management (new york, ny)
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 145 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Gonçalo S Duarte,1–3 João Santos,3 João Costa1–41Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Laboratory, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 2Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, 3Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 4Cochrane Portugal, Lisboa, PortugalWhile updating our Cochrane review on tapentadol for chronic musculoskeletal pain,1 we found a study by Ueberall and Mueller-Schwefe.2 It passed the initial screening phase by using words such as “blinded” and “randomly”, methodologically positive characteristics most often seen in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). On further analysis, we found that it is not an RCT and therefore not eligible for our Cochrane review. We nonetheless remained interested, since the authors clearly made methodological options that, despite sounding pondered, rigorous, and methodologically desirable, in fact add little to nothing in terms of quality or rigor. In fact, this quasi-rigor can be fully appreciated when assessing the study using the Cochrane model for risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions.3View the original paper by Ueberall and Mueller-Schwefe.
| Reference Key |
gs2017journalresponse
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Duarte GS;Santos J;Costa J |
| Journal | waste management (new york, ny) |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.