ArticleClinical rheumatology2019
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in rheumatology: a gentle introduction for clinicians.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for the management of Takayasu arteritis-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Therapeutic Potential of Ultrasound Neuromodulation in Decreasing Neuropathic Pain: Clinical and Experimental Evidence.Current neuropharmacology · 2021Review
- Statistical data presentation: a primer for rheumatology researchers.Rheumatology international · 2021Review
- Meta-analysis in the era of big data.Clinical rheumatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the plethora of studies today on the same topic, clinicians in rheumatology as well as others increasingly rely on systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, to aid in their evidence-based decision-making. However, given time constraints, staying up-to-date on current methods for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as interpreting the results of these reviews for application in clinical practice can be challenging. The purpose of this paper is to try and address this gap. In this paper, a description of the different types of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is provided as well as a description of the major elements, including methodology and interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Included is a broad, five-question checklist to aid clinicians in rheumatology for making decisions about the utility of a systematic review. It is the hopes that this paper will aid clinicians in rheumatology as well as other consumers of systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the information necessary for judging the utility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in their own work.
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.