ArticleThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021
When beauty is but skin deep: dealing with problematic studies in systematic reviews.
Article in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing elective hip or knee surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing definitive fixation or joint replacement for hip, pelvic and long bone fractures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Unusual outcome variances as a method to identify potentially problematic clinical trials.PloS one · 2026Article
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Assessing the certainty of the evidence in systematic reviews: importance, process, and use.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Trustworthiness assessment of published clinical trials: Literature review of domains and questions.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Review
- Preoperative statins in cardiac surgery: a tale of small study bias or 'the truth, and nothing but the truth'.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Article
- A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Trustworthiness assessment as an inclusion criterion for systematic reviews-What is the impact on results?Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis.Research synthesis methods · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.