SynthesisGut and liver2015
Assessment for Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Field of Hepatology.
Synthesis in Gut and liver, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Relative Adrenal Insufficiency in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2017Pooled it
- Transient elastography versus hepatic venous pressure gradient for diagnosing portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2017Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Hepatic Vein Arrival Time Performed with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography for Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Gut and liver · 2017Pooled it
- Prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with liver cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and fibrosis in chronic liver disease: a systematic review.Hepatology international · 2016Pooled it
- Rifaximin and Propranolol Combination Therapy Is More Effective than Propranolol Monotherapy for the Reduction of Portal Pressure: An Open Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.Gut and liver · 2017Trial
- Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Are systematic reviews addressing nutrition for cancer prevention trustworthy? A systematic survey of quality and risk of bias.Nutrition reviews · 2022Article
- Liver regeneration therapy through the hepatic artery-infusion of cultured bone marrow cells in a canine liver fibrosis model.PloS one · 2019Article
- Role of the renin-angiotensin system in hepatic fibrosis and portal hypertension.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2018Review
- Effect of Function-Enhanced Mesenchymal Stem Cells Infected With Decorin-Expressing Adenovirus on Hepatic Fibrosis.Stem cells translational medicine · 2016Article
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
A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for evidence-based strategies in medicine and evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice. The popularity of SRs has also increased markedly in the field of hepatology. However, although SRs are considered to provide a higher level of evidence with greater confidence than original articles, there have been no reports on the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of hepatology. Therefore, we performed a quality assessment of 225 SRs and MAs that were recently published in the field of hepatology (January 2011 to September 2014) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Using AMSTAR, we revealed both a shortage of assessments of the scientific quality of individual studies and a publication bias in many SRs and MAs. This review addresses the concern that SRs and MAs need to be conducted in a stricter and more objective manner to minimize bias and random errors. Thus, SRs and MAs should be supported by a multidisciplinary approach that includes clinical experts, methodologists, and statisticians.
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.