Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30971933›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2019

Meta-Analytic Methodology for Basic Research: A Practical Guide.

Nicholas Mikolajewicz, Svetlana V Komarova

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 27 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 234 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Nutrients · 2024
    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
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas MikolajewiczFaculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Svetlana V KomarovaFaculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
McGill University · CAShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Basic life science literature is rich with information, however methodically quantitative attempts to organize this information are rare. Unlike clinical research, where consolidation efforts are facilitated by systematic review and meta-analysis, the basic sciences seldom use such rigorous quantitative methods. The goal of this study is to present a brief theoretical foundation, computational resources and workflow outline along with a working example for performing systematic or rapid reviews of basic research followed by meta-analysis. Conventional meta-analytic techniques are extended to accommodate methods and practices found in basic research. Emphasis is placed on handling heterogeneity that is inherently prevalent in studies that use diverse experimental designs and models. We introduce

Indexed as

basic researchMATLABmeta-analysismethodologyrapid reviewsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30971933
PMCPMC6445886
OpenAlexW2924426490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.