ArticleSystematic reviews2016
Cochrane: the unfinished symphony of research synthesis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preoperative statin therapy for adults undergoing cardiac surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Acupuncture for the Relief of Chronic Pain: A Synthesis of Systematic Reviews.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Preoperative statins in cardiac surgery: a tale of small study bias or 'the truth, and nothing but the truth'.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2018Article
- MalaCards: an amalgamated human disease compendium with diverse clinical and genetic annotation and structured search.Nucleic acids research · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The NHS needs valid information on the safety and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Cochrane systematic reviews are an important source of this information. Traditionally, Cochrane has attempted to identify and include all relevant trials in systematic reviews on the basis that if all trials are identified and included, there should be no selection bias. However, a predictable consequence of the drive to include all trials is that some studies are included that are not trials (false positives). Including such studies in reviews might increase bias. More effort is needed to authenticate trials to be included in reviews, but this task is bedevilled by the enormous increase in the number of 'trials' conducted each year. We argue that excluding small trials from reviews would release resources for more detailed appraisal of larger trials. Conducting fewer but broader reviews that contain fewer but properly validated trials might better serve patients' interests.
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.