Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34026580›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of methodology2021

Rationalising animal research synthesis in orthopaedic literature.

Konstantinos Tsikopoulos, Konstantinos Sidiropoulos, Dimitrios Kitridis, Lorenzo Drago, Rakesh Ebnezar, David Lavalette

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Konstantinos TsikopoulosOrthopaedic Department, Harrogate and District Foundation Trust, Harrogate HG2 7SX, North Yorkshire, United Kingdom. kostastsikop@gmail.com.
Konstantinos SidiropoulosOrthopaedic Department, General Hospital of Serres, Serres 62120, Greece.
Dimitrios KitridisFirst Orthopedic Department of Aristotle University, G. Papanikolaou General Hospital, Thessaloniki 55210, Greece.
Lorenzo DragoLaboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Biochemical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan 20164, Italy.
Rakesh EbnezarOrthopaedic Department, Harrogate and District Foundation Trust, Harrogate HG2 7SX, North Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
David LavaletteOrthopaedic Department, Harrogate and District Foundation Trust, Harrogate HG2 7SX, North Yorkshire, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews in orthopaedic literature are frequently criticised for offering inconsistent conclusions. On top of that, high-quality randomized human evidence on crucial orthopaedic topics is more often than not lacking. In this situation, pooling animal literature could offer an excellent insight into unanswered critical clinical questions, thus potentially improving healthcare. In this paper, we sought to present the rationale and basic principles governing meta-analysis of animal research. More specifically, we elaborated on the available evidence-based methods to achieve a scientifically sound animal data synthesis. In addition, we discussed result interpretation, strength of recommendations and clinical implications based on the results of these meta-analytic modalities.

Indexed as

Animal researchEvidence synthesisin vivoMeta-analysisOrthopaedics

Identifiers

PMID34026580
PMCPMC8127423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.