Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27288371›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Empirical evaluation of the Q-Genie tool: a protocol for assessment of effectiveness.

Z N Sohani, S Sarma, A Alyass, R J de Souza, S Robiou-du-Pont, A Li, A Mayhew, F Yazdi, H Reddon, A Lamri and 6 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 18 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, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Skin barrier-related genes in childhood atopic dermatitis, asthma, and allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026
    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. Current profile of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease in Africa: A systematic review.Journal of the peripheral nervous system : JPNS · 2022
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Frontiers in genetics · 2022
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

16 authors.

Z N SohaniDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
S SarmaDeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
A AlyassDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
R J de SouzaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
S Robiou-du-PontDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
A LiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
A MayhewDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
F YazdiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
H ReddonDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
A LamriDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
C StryjeckiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
A IsholaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Y K LeeDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
N VashiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
S S AnandDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
D MeyreDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Chanchalani Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Department of Pathology & Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Faculté de Médecine, Inserm U-954, University of Lorraine and University Hospital Center of Nancy, Nancy, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMeta-analyses of genetic association studies are affected by biases and quality shortcomings of the individual studies. We previously developed and validated a risk of bias tool for use in systematic reviews of genetic association studies. The present study describes a larger empirical evaluation of the Q-Genie tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and the Human Genome Epidemiology Network will be searched for published meta-analyses of genetic association studies. Twelve reviewers in pairs will apply the Q-Genie tool to all studies in included meta-analyses. The Q-Genie will then be evaluated on its ability to (i) increase precision after exclusion of low quality studies, (ii) decrease heterogeneity after exclusion of low quality studies and (iii) good agreement with experts on quality rating by Q-Genie. A qualitative assessment of the tool will also be conducted using structured questionnaires. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will quantitatively and qualitatively assess the Q-Genie's ability to identify poor quality genetic association studies. This information will inform the selection of studies for inclusion in meta-analyses, conduct sensitivity analyses and perform metaregression. Results of this study will strengthen our confidence in estimates of the effect of a gene on an outcome from meta-analyses, ultimately bringing us closer to deliver on the promise of personalised medicine. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: An updated Q-Genie tool will be made available from the Population Genomics Program website and the results will be submitted for a peer-reviewed publication.

Indexed as

Empirical ResearchEvidence-Based MedicineGenetic Association StudiesHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPublication BiasReproducibility of ResultsSystematic Reviews as TopicGenetic association studiesGenomicsMeta-analysesRisk of biasSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID27288371
PMCPMC4908888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.