ArticleMedicine2020
What factors affect the methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis? Protocol for a systematic review.
Article in Medicine, 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.
- LncRNA ROR/miR-145-5p axis modulates the osteoblasts proliferation and apoptosis in osteoporosis.Bioengineered · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteoporosis is a disease with a high prevalence and low treatment rate, which poses a serious threat to the lives of patients and brings a heavy economic burden. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide vital guidance for disease management. Up to now, different countries, regions, and organizations have issued a certain number of CPGs for osteoporosis, but the recommendations in different guidelines are inconsistent. This protocol plans to evaluate the quality of the CPGs for osteoporosis and then make a comparative analysis of the recommendations in the CPGs.
methodsSeveral databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library, as well as the official website of relevant organizations will be searched. Screen and data extraction will be performed by two reviewers independently, and the third reviewer help to resolve the divergence between them. Using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the CPGs. The extracted recommendations, including but not limited to screening, diagnosis, evaluation and treatment, will be summarized and analyzed, and the results will be presented in tabular form. Bubble charts will be used to show quality differences between CPGs and to describe the correlation between methodological and reporting quality through regression analysis. Excel, EndnoteX9 and SPSS 25.0 will be used.
resultTo evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the existing CPGs of osteoporosis and analyze the similarities and differences between the recommendations, the results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
conclusionThis study will provide systematic evidence for existing CPGs of osteoporosis and to provide a reference for CPGs users. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: INPLASY 202070031.
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.