Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33964880›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2021

Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review.

Linh Tran, Dao Ngoc Hien Tam, Abdelrahman Elshafay, Thao Dang, Kenji Hirayama, Nguyen Tien Huy

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 24 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 24 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Oncogenic Role of SRPK2 in Different Types of Cancer: A Systematic Review.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. The relevance of the superior cervical ganglion for cardiac autonomic innervation in health and disease: a systematic review.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Linh Tran *Institute of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, Duy Tan University, Ho Chi Minh City, 700000, Vietnam.
Dao Ngoc Hien Tam *Asia Shine Trading & Service CO. LTD., Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Abdelrahman ElshafayOnline Research Club, Nagasaki, Japan.
Thao DangOnline Research Club, Nagasaki, Japan.
Kenji HirayamaDepartment of Immunogenetics, Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN), Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8523, Japan.
Nguyen Tien HuySchool of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8523, Japan. tienhuy@nagasaki-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-9543-9440

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature. This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Our study aims to systematically review all available quality assessment (QA) tools employed on in vitro SRs/MAs.

methodA search on four databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library and Web of Science, was conducted from 2006 to 2020. The available SRs/MAs of in vitro studies were evaluated. DARE tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included articles. Our protocol was developed and uploaded to ResearchGate in June 2016.

resultsOur findings reported an increasing trend in publication of in vitro SRs/MAs from 2007 to 2020. Among the 244 included SRs/MAs, 126 articles (51.6%) had conducted the QA procedure. Overall, 51 QA tools were identified; 26 of them (51%) were developed by the authors specifically, whereas 25 (49%) were pre-constructed tools. SRs/MAs in dentistry frequently had their own QA tool developed by the authors, while SRs/MAs in other topics applied various QA tools. Many pre-structured tools in these in vitro SRs/MAs were modified from QA tools of in vivo or clinical trials, therefore, they had various criteria.

conclusionMany different QA tools currently exist in the literature; however, none cover all critical aspects of in vitro SRs/MAs. There is a need for a comprehensive guideline to ensure the quality of SR/MA due to their precise nature.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiasDatabases, FactualHumansPubMedIn vitro studyMeta-analysisQuality assessment toolSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33964880
PMCPMC8106836

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.