Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28735501›Full record

SynthesisIrish journal of medical science2018

Step by step guide to do a systematic review and meta-analysis for medical professionals.

Y Bashir, K C Conlon

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Irish journal of medical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 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
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.

Y BashirProfessorial Surgical Unit, Department of Surgery, Tallaght Hospital, The University of Dublin trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. ybashir@tcd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8902-8883
K C ConlonProfessorial Surgical Unit, Department of Surgery, Tallaght Hospital, The University of Dublin trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSystematic review and meta-analysis are statistical tools used to review researches performed on a same topic. They extract the collective effect of the studies performed on the topic of interest after statistically analysing the data of all the studies included. AIMS AND

objectivesSystematic reviews and meta-analysis are getting more and more popular in the medical field. Statistics is never the strong aspect of medical professionals, and facing a large number of statistical tests and values could be quite confusing for them. The aim of this article is to simplify these two very important research modalities for medical professionals.

conclusionThis article will provide a step-to-step guide for the medical colleagues to perform a meta-analysis if they are interested.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHumansMedical StaffEducationGuideMeta-analysisResearchSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28735501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.