Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23439862›Full record

ArticleHSR proceedings in intensive care & cardiovascular anesthesia2011

The rough guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

G Biondi-Zoccai, M Lotrionte, G Landoni, M G Modena

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in HSR proceedings in intensive care & cardiovascular anesthesia, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Intermittent levosimendan improves mid-term survival in chronic heart failure patients: meta-analysis of randomised trials.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2014
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

G Biondi-ZoccaiDivision of Cardiology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy ; Meta-analysis and Evidence-based medicine Training in Cardiology (METCARDIO), Ospedaletti, Italy.
M Lotrionte
G Landoni
M G Modena

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hierarchy of evidence based medicine postulates that systematic reviews of homogenous randomized trials represent one of the uppermost levels of clinical evidence. Indeed, the current overwhelming role of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses in evidence based heath care calls for a thorough knowledge of the pros and cons of these study designs, even for the busy clinician. Despite this sore need, few succinct but thorough resources are available to guide users or would-be authors of systematic reviews. This article provides a rough guide to reading and, summarily, designing and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Indexed as

meta-analysismeta-regressionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID23439862
PMCPMC3484632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.