scholarly journals Peer Review #2 of "Time arrow in published clinical studies/trials indexed in MEDLINE: a systematic analysis of retrospective vs. prospective study design, from 1960 to 2017 (v0.1)"

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Rader
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Time Arrow ◽  
Prospective Study Design

scholarly journals Time arrow in published clinical studies/trials indexed in MEDLINE: a systematic analysis of Retrospective vs Prospective study design, from 1960 to 2017.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele M Ciulla ◽  
Patrizia Vivona
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Time Line ◽  
Time Arrow ◽  
Prospective Study Design ◽  
Single Time Point

Clinical studies/trials are experiments or observations on human subjects considered by the scientific community the most appropriate instrument to answer specific research questions on interventions on health outcomes. The time-line of the observations might be focused on a single time point or to follow time, backward or forward, in the so called, respectively, retrospective and prospective study design. Since the retrospective approach has been criticized for the possible sources of errors due to bias and confounding, we aimed this study to assess if there is a prevalence of retrospective vs prospective design in the clinical studies/trials by querying MEDLINE. Our results on a sample of 1,438,872 studies/trials, (yrs 1960-2017), support a prevalence of retrospective, respectively 55% vs 45%. To explain this result, arandom sub-sample of studies where the country of origin was reported (n=1576) was categorized in high and low-income based onthe nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and matched with the topic of the research. As expected, the absolute majority of studies/trials are carried on by high-income countries, respectively 86% vs 14%; even if a slight prevalence of retrospective was recorded in both income groups, nonetheless the most part of prospective studies are carried out by high-GDP countries, 85% vs 15%. Finally the differences in the design of the study are understandable when considering the topic of the research.

scholarly journals Time arrow in published clinical studies/trials indexed in MEDLINE: a systematic analysis of retrospective vs. prospective study design, from 1960 to 2017

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e6363
Author(s):  
Michele M. Ciulla ◽  
Patrizia Vivona
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Time Line ◽  
Time Arrow ◽  
Prospective Study Design ◽  
Single Time Point

Clinical studies/trials are experiments or observations on human subjects considered by the scientific community the most appropriate instrument to answer specific research questions on interventions on health outcomes. The time-line of the observations might be focused on a single time point or to follow time, backward or forward, in the so called, respectively, retrospective and prospective study design. Since the retrospective approach has been criticized for the possible sources of errors due to bias and confounding, we aimed this study to assess if there is a prevalence of retrospective vs. prospective design in the clinical studies/trials by querying MEDLINE. Our results on a sample of 1,438,872 studies/trials, (yrs 1960–2017), support a prevalence of retrospective, respectively 55% vs. 45%. To explain this result, a random sub-sample of studies where the country of origin was reported (n = 1,576) was categorized in high and low-income based onthe nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and matched with the topic of the research. As expected, the absolute majority of studies/trials are carried on by high-income countries, respectively 86% vs. 14%; even if a slight prevalence of retrospective was recorded in both income groups, for the most part prospective studies are carried out by high-GDP countries, 85% vs. 15%. Finally, the differences in the design of the study are understandable when considering the topic of the research.

scholarly journals Time arrow in published clinical studies/trials indexed in MEDLINE: a systematic analysis of Retrospective vs Prospective study design, from 1960 to 2017.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele M Ciulla ◽  
Patrizia Vivona
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Time Line ◽  
Time Arrow ◽  
Prospective Study Design ◽  
Single Time Point

Clinical studies/trials are experiments or observations on human subjects considered by the scientific community the most appropriate instrument to answer specific research questions on interventions on health outcomes. The time-line of the observations might be focused on a single time point or to follow time, backward or forward, in the so called, respectively, retrospective and prospective study design. Since the retrospective approach has been criticized for the possible sources of errors due to bias and confounding, we aimed this study to assess if there is a prevalence of retrospective vs prospective design in the clinical studies/trials by querying MEDLINE. Our results on a sample of 1,438,872 studies/trials, (yrs 1960-2017), support a prevalence of retrospective, respectively 55% vs 45%. To explain this result, arandom sub-sample of studies where the country of origin was reported (n=1576) was categorized in high and low-income based onthe nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and matched with the topic of the research. As expected, the absolute majority of studies/trials are carried on by high-income countries, respectively 86% vs 14%; even if a slight prevalence of retrospective was recorded in both income groups, nonetheless the most part of prospective studies are carried out by high-GDP countries, 85% vs 15%. Finally the differences in the design of the study are understandable when considering the topic of the research.

Anesthesia Safety, Outcomes, and Prospective Study Design

1998 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 790-791. ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet M. Price ◽  
Randall L. Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Anesthesia Safety ◽  
Safety Outcomes ◽  
Prospective Study Design
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document