Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33450104›Full record

ReviewThe journal of gene medicine2021

A brief introduction of meta-analyses in clinical practice and research.

Xiao-Meng Wang, Xi-Ru Zhang, Zhi-Hao Li, Wen-Fang Zhong, Pei Yang, Chen Mao

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of gene medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Diagnostic Efficacy of FAPI-PET/CT Versus [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

6 authors.

Xiao-Meng WangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xi-Ru ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhi-Hao LiDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Wen-Fang ZhongDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Pei YangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Chen MaoDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the explosive growth of medical information, it is almost impossible for healthcare providers to review and evaluate all relevant evidence to make the best clinical decisions. Meta-analyses, which summarize all existing evidence and quantitatively synthesize individual studies, have become the best available evidence for informing clinical practice. This article introduces the common methods, steps, principles, strengths and limitations of meta-analyses and aims to help healthcare providers and researchers obtain a basic understanding of meta-analyses in clinical practice and research.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchMeta-Analysis as TopicClinical Decision-MakingHealth PersonnelHumansclinical researchmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID33450104
PMCPMC8243934

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.