Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34129108›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021

Systematic reviews in surgery-recommendations from the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery.

Eva Kalkum, Rosa Klotz, Svenja Seide, Felix J Hüttner, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Felix Nickel, Elias Khajeh, Phillip Knebel, Markus K Diener, Pascal Probst

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 27 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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. 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
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

10 authors.

Eva KalkumStudy Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Rosa KlotzStudy Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Svenja SeideInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Felix J HüttnerDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Karl-Friedrich KowalewskiDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Felix NickelDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Elias KhajehDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Phillip KnebelStudy Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus K DienerStudy Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Pascal ProbstStudy Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. pascal.probst@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0895-4015

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach. PURPOSE: This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis.

conclusionsFor systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Surgical Procedures, OperativeSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicSocieties, MedicalEvidence-based medicineMeta-analysisSurgerySynoptic evidenceSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34129108
PMCPMC8481197

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.