ArticleKorean journal of anesthesiology2017
Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study.
Article in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023Pooled it
- Explanation of trial sequential analysis: using a post-hoc analysis of meta-analyses published in Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere have been few recent reports on the methodological quality of meta-analysis, despite the enormous number of studies using meta-analytic techniques in the field of anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in the anesthesia literature.
methodsA search was conducted to identify all meta-analyses ever been published in the
resultsWe identified 121 meta-analyses in the anesthesia literature from January 2004 through the end of November 2016 (
conclusionsEven though there is little variability in the reporting and methodology of meta-analysis in the anesthesia literature, significant quality improvement in the reporting was observed in the
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.