Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25869062›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2015

Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part II - Certainty.

Harman Chaudhry, Clary J Foote, Gordon Guyatt, Lehana Thabane, Toshi A Furukawa, Brad Petrisor, Mohit Bhandari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Choosing the optimum strategy for rTMS.Evidence-based mental health · 2018
    Article
  9. Editorial: Sparse-data Bias-What the Savvy Reader Needs to Know.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018
    Article
  10. Editorial: Getting the Most from What You Read in Orthopaedic Journals.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017
    Article
  11. Which psychotherapy for PTSD?Evidence-based mental health · 2016
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Harman ChaudhryDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, 293 Wellington Street N, Suite 110, Hamilton, ON, L8L 2X2, Canada, harman.chaudhry@medportal.ca.
Clary J Foote
Gordon Guyatt
Lehana Thabane
Toshi A Furukawa
Brad Petrisor
Mohit Bhandari

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the previous article (Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons-Part I, Credibility), we presented an approach to evaluating the credibility or methodologic rigor of network meta-analyses (NMA), an innovative approach to simultaneously addressing the relative effectiveness of three or more treatment options for a given medical condition or disease state. In the second part of the Users' Guide for Surgeons, we discuss and demonstrate the application of criteria for determining the certainty in effect sizes and directions associated with a given treatment option through an example pertinent to clinical orthopaedics.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicReproducibility of ResultsHumansOrthopedic ProceduresReview Literature as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25869062
PMCPMC4457777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.