Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26679486›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2016

Empirical evidence about inconsistency among studies in a pair-wise meta-analysis.

Kirsty M Rhodes, Rebecca M Turner, Julian P T Higgins

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Antiemetic medications for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Location-scale models for meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Kirsty M RhodesMRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
Rebecca M TurnerMRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
Julian P T HigginsSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper investigates how inconsistency (as measured by the I

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignStatistics as TopicBayes TheoremBone NeoplasmsDatabases, BibliographicData Interpretation, StatisticalEmpirical ResearchHumansModels, StatisticalOdds RatioOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsReview Literature as TopicRiskTreatment OutcomeBayesian analysisheterogeneityinconsistencyintervention studiesmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID26679486
PMCPMC5217093

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.