Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30717891›Full record

ReviewBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)

[Tutorial for performing systematic review and meta-analysis with interventional anesthesia studies].

Fabiano Timbó Barbosa, Amanda Bastos Lira, Olavo Barbosa de Oliveira Neto, Leyna Leite Santos, Isabelle Oliveira Santos, Luciano Timbó Barbosa, Marina Viegas Moura Rezende Ribeiro, Célio Fernando de Sousa-Rodrigues

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fabiano Timbó BarbosaUniversidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brasil. Electronic address: fabianotimbo@yahoo.com.br.
Amanda Bastos LiraUniversidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brasil.
Olavo Barbosa de Oliveira NetoUniversidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brasil.
Leyna Leite SantosUniversidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brasil.
Isabelle Oliveira SantosCentro Universitário Tiradentes, Maceió, AL, Brasil.
Luciano Timbó BarbosaHospital Geral do Estado Professor Osvaldo Brandão Vilela, Maceió, AL, Brasil.
Marina Viegas Moura Rezende RibeiroUniversidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brasil.
Célio Fernando de Sousa-RodriguesUniversidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brasil.
Universidade Federal de Alagoas · BRUniversidade Tiradentes · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe systematic review of randomized clinical trials is crucial to assess the safety and effectiveness of intermediate procedures. The objective of this article is to present a tutorial for the planning and execution of systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trial studies. CONTENT: The systematic literature review is the type of research that organizes, criticizes, and integrates available evidence published in the health field. Systematization leads to less bias, however, the quality of systematic reviews may not always be perceived due to the way it is described in the articles. The information disclosed in the articles is not always free of bias. The steps for carrying out a systematic review include design, protocol registration, implementation, mathematical analysis of results, and dissemination. PRISMA statement has improved the quality of systematic review reports by providing a list of items to be described, and this article emphasizes the key steps for performing a systematic review of interventions.

conclusionThe evidence generated through a systematic review can provide the clinician with greater confidence in decision making at the moment of clinical practice and optimize the benefits to his patients, serving as a tool to assist managers in making decisions regarding the implementation of new strategies in favor of the public health.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicAnesthesiologyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicEnsaio clínico randomizadoMeta‐analysisMetanálisePrisma statementPRISMA statementRandomized clinical trialRevisão sistemáticaSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30717891
PMCPMC9391895
OpenAlexW2912006068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.