Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29450780›Full record

SynthesisCurrent allergy and asthma reports2018

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis in Rhinosinusitis: a Critical Review of the Reviews.

Abigail Walker, Claire Hopkins

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 51% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abigail WalkerENT Department, Guy's & St Thomas' Hospitals, London, SE1 9RT, England.
Claire HopkinsENT Department, Guy's & St Thomas' Hospitals, London, SE1 9RT, England. clairehopkins@yahoo.com.
St. Thomas Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThere has been an explosion in the number of published systematic reviews on chronic rhinosinusitis in the last decade. RECENT

findingsWhile the aim of these reviews in facilitating evidence-based practice is laudable, poor quality reviews may contain significant bias that can mislead a non-discerning reader. Attention therefore must be given to review methodology before implanting findings. Organisations such as the Cochrane Collaboration promote high-quality reviews, but are limited in chronic sinus disease by heterogeneous outcomes and a paucity of randomised trials.

Indexed as

HumansRhinitisSinusitisChronic rhinosinusitisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29450780
OpenAlexW2791519352

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.