Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27729699›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of anaesthesia2016

A brief overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Kamath Sriganesh, Harsha Shanthanna, Jason W Busse

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

3 authors.

Kamath SriganeshDepartment of Neuroanaesthesia, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Harsha ShanthannaDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Jason W BusseDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; The Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) are performed to acquire all evidence to address a specific clinical question and involve a reproducible and thorough search of the literature and critical appraisal of eligible studies. When combined with a meta-analysis (quantitatively pooling of results of individual studies), a rigorously conducted SR provides the best available evidence for informing clinical practice. In this article, we provide a brief overview of SRs and meta-analyses for anaesthesiologists.

Indexed as

Evidence-based medicinemeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27729699
PMCPMC5037953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.