ReviewMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2021
Evidence-Based Decision-Making 2: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proposed Risk of Bias Assessment Tool forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in ASD treatment.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Machine learning and multi-omics in precision medicine for ME/CFS.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Can carbamide peroxide be as effective as hydrogen peroxide for in-office tooth bleaching and cause less sensitivity? A systematic review.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Review
- Need for Training in Research Methodology Prior to Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and the Effectiveness of an Online Training Program: The Global Andrology Forum Model.The world journal of men's health · 2023Article
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
The number of studies published in the biomedical literature has dramatically increased over the last few decades. This massive proliferation of literature makes clinical medicine increasingly complex, and information from multiple studies is often needed to inform a particular clinical decision. However, available studies often vary in their design, methodological quality, and population studied, and may define the research question of interest quite differently. This can make it challenging to synthesize the conclusions of multiple studies. In addition, since even highly cited trials may be challenged over time, clinical decision-making requires ongoing reconciliation of studies which provide different answers to the same question. Because it is often impractical for readers to track down and review all the primary studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are an important source of evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of any given disease. This chapter summarizes methods for conducting and reading systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as describes potential advantages and disadvantages of these publications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33871856What 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.