Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33556155›Full record

ReviewPloS one2021

A review of methods for addressing components of interventions in meta-analysis.

Maria Petropoulou, Orestis Efthimiou, Gerta Rücker, Guido Schwarzer, Toshi A Furukawa, Alessandro Pompoli, Huiberdina L Koek, Cinzia Del Giovane, Nicolas Rodondi, Dimitris Mavridis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Methodological considerations in comparative evaluations of pulsed field ablation systems for atrial fibrillation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026
    Article
  5. Innovations to improve outcomes and uptake of psychotherapies for mental disorders: a state-of-the-art review.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Network meta-analysis with dose-response relationships.BMC medical research methodology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Maria PetropoulouFaculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7147-3644
Orestis EfthimiouInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0955-7572
Gerta RückerFaculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Guido SchwarzerFaculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Toshi A FurukawaDepartments of Health Promotion and Human Behavior and Clinical Epidemiology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan.
Alessandro PompoliPsychiatric Rehabilitation Clinic Villa San Pietro, Trento, Italy.
Huiberdina L KoekDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cinzia Del GiovaneInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nicolas RodondiInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Dimitris MavridisDepartment of Primary Education, Evidence Synthesis Methods Team, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many healthcare interventions are complex, consisting of multiple, possibly interacting, components. Several methodological articles addressing complex interventions in the meta-analytical context have been published. We hereby provide an overview of methods used to evaluate the effects of complex interventions with meta-analytical models. We summarized the methodology, highlighted new developments, and described the benefits, drawbacks, and potential challenges of each identified method. We expect meta-analytical methods focusing on components of several multicomponent interventions to become increasingly popular due to recently developed, easy-to-use, software tools that can be used to conduct the relevant analyses. The different meta-analytical methods are illustrated through two examples comparing psychotherapies for panic disorder.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisResearch DesignAnimalsDelivery of Health CareHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicSoftware

Identifiers

PMID33556155
PMCPMC7870082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.