SynthesisPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2013
The contribution of systematic reviews to the practice of pediatric nephrology.
Synthesis in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The key to accurate decision-making is to use the best available evidence. Systematic reviews aim to identify and combine evidence using systematic methods to minimize bias to provide reliable data for patient care. While systematic reviews can address different clinical questions, the methodology is most developed for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Such systematic reviews include all available trial evidence, enhance the precision of the estimates of treatment effects, and identify where evidence is lacking or where sufficient evidence is already available. However the term "systematic review" does not guarantee that a review covers all the available data, that the validity of included studies has been appropriately assessed, or that data have been combined appropriately in meta-analyses. Biases in systematic review include those related to identifying data (publication bias, language bias, selective reporting of outcomes) and those due to the design and conduct of trials (selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias). Thus, readers should read a systematic review carefully before accepting its results and conclusions. This review examines the information that can be provided by systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials together with the biases that can potentially jeopardize the results and conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22476252What 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.