ArticleAmerican health & drug benefits2008
Meta-analysis 101: what you want to know in the era of comparative effectiveness.
Article in American health & drug benefits, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Radiotherapy-Induced Otitis Media With Effusion in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.The Laryngoscope · 2026Pooled it
- Nitrous oxide for the treatment of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EBioMedicine · 2025Pooled it
- The effects of complex training on performance variables in basketball players: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
- Closing the screening gap but not the writing gap: a two-topic evaluation of LLMs for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in hepatology.Npj gut and liver · 2026Article
- Review
- Intrathecal Nicardipine After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Scoping Review.Neurocritical care · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular-related healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with hypertension switching from metoprolol to nebivolol.American health & drug benefits · 2015Article
- Using meta-analyses for comparative effectiveness research.Nursing outlookArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the era of "comparative effectiveness" research, each of the major stakeholders in healthcare-payors, patients, providers, and government-face a similar challenge. When making a decision about whether a new device, drug, or a diagnostic modality should be considered for use or coverage, what choices are best supported by the evidence? Medical evidence is defined by randomized controlled trials and by observational studies that vary greatly in their design, the accuracy of their analyses, and the relevance of their conclusions and recommendations. Hence, key decision makers increasingly rely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses to facilitate the interpretation and application of research evidence. Knowing how to evaluate meta-analyses and understanding the potential pitfalls of the method are crucial for those involved in designing drug benefits. The authors highlight the process, strengths, and weaknesses of meta-analysis and explain how to judge the value of the results.
Identifiers
25126223PMC4115319What 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.