ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2021
[Types of evidence syntheses].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Educational Escape Rooms for Providing Knowledge on Stress Management and Health Promotion for Students-A Rapid Review and Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Efficacy of home-based and inpatient treatment for children and adolescents in psychiatric crisis: A systematic review protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- The Spectrum of Heat-Related Diseases - A Meta-Review.International journal of public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This manuscript outlines various types of review articles as forms of evidence synthesis with special regard to their strengths and limitations. Review articles not only present summarised data, but also offer an evaluation of the quality of the individual studies included in it. The validity and the reliability of outcomes of reviews is strongly dependent on the quality of the data included. For this reason, a comprehensive literature selection process is paramount. Fundamental knowledge of bias and literature assessment is also necessary when reading reviews. This article presents selected tools for evidence appraisal and evaluation of bias risk.
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.