Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24280020›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2013

Meta-analysis and The Cochrane Collaboration: 20 years of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group.

Joanne E McKenzie, Georgia Salanti, Steff C Lewis, Douglas G Altman

Abstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Meta-analysis of Safety and Efficacy of Anticoagulation versus no Anticoagulation in Octogenarians and Nonagenarians with Atrial Fibrillation.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. A Critique of Pharmacokinetic Calculators for Drug Dosing Individualization.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Mendelian randomization study of diabetes and dementia in the Million Veteran Program.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
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.

Joanne E McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. joanne.mckenzie@monash.edu.
Georgia Salanti
Steff C Lewis
Douglas G Altman

Funding

Cancer Research UK C5529European Research Council 260559
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Statistical Methods Group has played a pivotal role in The Cochrane Collaboration over the past 20 years. The Statistical Methods Group has determined the direction of statistical methods used within Cochrane reviews, developed guidance for these methods, provided training, and continued to discuss and consider new and controversial issues in meta-analysis. The contribution of Statistical Methods Group members to the meta-analysis literature has been extensive and has helped to shape the wider meta-analysis landscape.In this paper, marking the 20th anniversary of The Cochrane Collaboration, we reflect on the history of the Statistical Methods Group, beginning in 1993 with the identification of aspects of statistical synthesis for which consensus was lacking about the best approach. We highlight some landmark methodological developments that Statistical Methods Group members have contributed to in the field of meta-analysis. We discuss how the Group implements and disseminates statistical methods within The Cochrane Collaboration. Finally, we consider the importance of robust statistical methodology for Cochrane systematic reviews, note research gaps, and reflect on the challenges that the Statistical Methods Group faces in its future direction.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicReview Literature as TopicHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansInformation ServicesStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24280020
PMCPMC4219183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.