Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25870806›Full record

ReviewAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2015

Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon.

Kevin Phan, David H Tian, Christopher Cao, Deborah Black, Tristan D Yan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 35 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 35 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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 35 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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. Complications of cervical total disc replacement and their associations with heterotopic ossification: 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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. 3D-printed spine surgery implants: a systematic review of the efficacy and clinical safety profile of patient-specific and off-the-shelf devices.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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  16. Effects of exercise interventions on social and cognitive functioning of men with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with 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 · 2020
    Pooled it
  19. Antifibrinolytic agents for paediatric scoliosis surgery: 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 · 2019
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Kevin Phan1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
David H Tian1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Christopher Cao1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Deborah Black1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Tristan D Yan1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rapidly growing literature across the surgical disciplines, there is a corresponding need to critically appraise and summarize the currently available evidence so they can be applied appropriately to patient care. The interpretation of systematic reviews is particularly challenging in cases where few robust clinical trials have been performed to address a particular question. However, risk of bias can be minimized and potentially useful conclusions can be drawn if strict review methodology is adhered to, including an exhaustive literature search, quality appraisal of primary studies, appropriate statistical methodology, assessment of confidence in estimates and risk of bias. Therefore, the following article aims to: (I) summarize to the important features of a thorough and rigorous systematic review or meta-analysis for the surgical literature; (II) highlight several underused statistical approaches which may yield further interesting insights compared to conventional pair-wise data synthesis techniques; and (III) propose a guide for thorough analysis and presentation of results.

Indexed as

forest plotmeta-analysismeta-regressionnetwork meta-analysisoutcomessurgerySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID25870806
PMCPMC4384252

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.