ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2001
The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews.
Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Value of predictive instruments to determine persisting restriction of function in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain. Systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2007Pooled it
- Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Pooled it
- Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Pooled it
- Effect of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy: multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Trial
- Comments on "Anthropometry and Current Aesthetic Concept of the Lower Third of the Face and Lips in Caucasian Adult Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- Opposing systematic reviews: the effects of two quality rating instruments on evidence regarding t'ai chi and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2011Article
- Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy.BMC medical research methodology · 2008Article
- Treating C. difficile.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2005Article
- How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2003Article
- A commentary on randomized clinical trials: How to produce them with a good level of evidence.Perspectives in clinical researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.