SynthesisSystematic reviews2019
Many continuous variables should be analyzed using the relative scale: a case study of β
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin C May Improve Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of physical activity on pulmonary function and quality of life in asthma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Association Between Neighborhood Factors and Adult Obesity in Shelby County, Tennessee: Geospatial Machine Learning Approach.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Article
- Usefulness of resveratrol supplementation in decreasing cardiometabolic risk factors comparing subjects with metabolic syndrome and healthy subjects with or without obesity: meta-analysis using multinational, randomised, controlled trials.Archives of medical sciences. Atherosclerotic diseases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relative scale adjusts for baseline variability and therefore may lead to findings that can be generalized more widely. It is routinely used for the analysis of binary outcomes but only rarely for continuous outcomes. Our objective was to compare relative vs absolute scale pooled outcomes using data from a recently published Cochrane systematic review that reported only absolute effects of inhaled β
methodsFrom the Cochrane review, we selected placebo-controlled cross-over studies that reported individual participant data (IPD). Reversal in FEV
resultsFourteen studies with 187 participants were identified for the IPD analysis. On the absolute scale, β
conclusionsCompared with the absolute scale, the relative scale captures more effectively the variation in the effects of β
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.