Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32309077›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020

How to Distinguish Best Evidence from Bias: A Basic Guide to Understanding a Systematic Review.

Cristina Pires Camargo, Rolf Gemperli, Rod J Rohrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Cristina Pires CamargoLaboratory of Microsurgery and Plastic Surgery (LIM-04), School of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
Rolf GemperliPlastic Surgery Division, School of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
Rod J RohrichDallas Plastic Surgery Institute; Dallas, Tex.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A systematic review is a powerful tool to synthesize and show concise and robust evidence for clinical practice. Thus, the inclusion of biased, low-quality studies should be avoided, for otherwise, the resulting systematic review will not reflect the best medical evidence. Because the methodology of systematic review is relatively new, this review aims to present basic rules to guide the reader's interpretation of a systematic review.

Identifiers

PMID32309077
PMCPMC7159968

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.