Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28701372›Full record

GuidelineEvidence-based medicine2017

Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research.

Mohammad Hassan Murad, Zhen Wang

Abstract readGuideline
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Evidence-based medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 208 papers, 41 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
208citing papers in PubMed, 41 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

208 citing papers in PubMed, 41 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

148 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Mohammad Hassan MuradEvidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5502-5975
Zhen WangEvidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Published research should be reported to evidence users with clarity and transparency that facilitate optimal appraisal and use of evidence and allow replication by other researchers. Guidelines for such reporting are available for several types of studies but not for meta-epidemiological methodology studies. Meta-epidemiological studies adopt a systematic review or meta-analysis approach to examine the impact of certain characteristics of clinical studies on the observed effect and provide empirical evidence for hypothesised associations. The unit of analysis in meta-epidemiological studies is a study, not a patient. The outcomes of meta-epidemiological studies are usually not clinical outcomes. In this guideline, we adapt items from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) to fit the context of meta-epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansPublishingQuality ControlResearch Reportepidemiology

Identifiers

PMID28701372
PMCPMC5537553

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.