SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2020
Assessment of reporting quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in neovascular age-related macular degeneration published from April 2014 to May 2018 using prisma statement.
Synthesis in International ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials on Knee and Ankle Injury Prevention Programs in Football Players Using PRISMA 2020.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the reporting quality of meta-analysis on neovascular age-related macular degeneration treatment and safety profile based on PRISMA statement.
methodsElectronic search performed in August 2018 to retrieve meta-analyses published from April 2014 to May 2018. PRISMA evaluation was determined by total scores of individual meta-analyses and items scores. Statistical analysis of parameters affecting the reporting evaluation included subgroup multivariate analysis and regression analysis.
resultsTwelve meta-analyses were finally included, three being Cochrane systematic reviews. Mean PRISMA score is 23.2/27 (86.1%). Eleven PRISMA ITEMS had significantly higher %score in 12 meta-analyses than in nine non-Cochrane meta-analyses measurements. Positive strong correlation identified between PRISMA %score and journal impact factor (JIF). Multivariate analysis between high-scored and low-scored meta-analyses established difference in means of several parameters (JIF, Publication Year).
conclusionsThe evaluation of overall reporting quality was favorable. As expected, the key role of several characteristics of meta-analysis affects this quality. Under-reporting of specific items (protocol, search strategy and assessment of risk of bias) indicates the urgency for PRISMA compliance.
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.