SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2013
Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 26 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 26 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of prevalence of mastitis in dairy Cattle in Algeria.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of physical interventions for preventing perineal trauma during vaginal delivery: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Handgrip strength association with weaning outcome in mechanically ventilated ICU patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapies targeting amyloid beta in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of fixed versus variable-dose prothrombin complex concentrate for emergent reversal of vitamin K antagonists: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2024Pooled it
- High-dose chemotherapy as initial salvage chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With and Without Resheathing and Repositioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Pooled it
- What are the barriers and facilitators to effective health promotion in urgent and emergency care? A systematic review.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Association of Tranexamic Acid Administration With Mortality and Thromboembolic Events in Patients With Traumatic Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Epidural steroid compared to placebo injection in sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2021Pooled it
- Association between occupational exposures and sarcoma incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- The Impact of Accidental Hypothermia on Mortality in Trauma Patients Overall and Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury Specifically: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effect of smoking on tuberculosis treatment outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Biofeedback for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With or Without Percutaneous Coronary Artery Revascularization Strategy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2017Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCritics of systematic reviews have argued that these studies often fail to inform clinical decision making because their results are far too general, that the data are sparse, such that findings cannot be applied to individual patients or for other decision making. While there is some consensus on methods for investigating statistical and methodological heterogeneity, little attention has been paid to clinical aspects of heterogeneity. Clinical heterogeneity, true effect heterogeneity, can be defined as variability among studies in the participants, the types or timing of outcome measurements, and the intervention characteristics. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.
methodsWe used a modified Delphi technique with three phases: (1) pre-meeting item generation; (2) face-to-face consensus meeting in the form of a modified Delphi process; and (3) post-meeting feedback. We identified and invited potential participants with expertise in systematic review methodology, systematic review reporting, or statistical aspects of meta-analyses, or those who published papers on clinical heterogeneity.
resultsBetween April and June of 2011, we conducted phone calls with participants. In June 2011 we held the face-to-face focus group meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan. First, we agreed upon a definition of clinical heterogeneity: Variations in the treatment effect that are due to differences in clinically related characteristics. Next, we discussed and generated recommendations in the following 12 categories related to investigating clinical heterogeneity: the systematic review team, planning investigations, rationale for choice of variables, types of clinical variables, the role of statistical heterogeneity, the use of plotting and visual aids, dealing with outlier studies, the number of investigations or variables, the role of the best evidence synthesis, types of statistical methods, the interpretation of findings, and reporting.
conclusionsClinical heterogeneity is common in systematic reviews. Our recommendations can help guide systematic reviewers in conducting valid and reliable investigations of clinical heterogeneity. Findings of these investigations may allow for increased applicability of findings of systematic reviews to the management of individual patients.
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.