ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2021
Methodological Rigor and Temporal Trends of Cardiovascular Medicine Meta-Analyses in Highest-Impact Journals.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overview of Systematic Reviews on Treatments for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Assessing Methodological Quality and Mapping Evidence Gaps.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2025Pooled it
- Cutting-Edge Methodological Guidance for Authors in Conducting the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of lifestyle medicine · 2024Review
- Rigor Me This: What Are the Basic Criteria for a Rigorous, Transparent, and Reproducible Scientific Study?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Well-conducted meta-analyses are considered to be at the top of the evidence-based hierarchy pyramid, with an expansion of these publications within the cardiovascular research arena. There are limited data evaluating the trends and quality of such publications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodological rigor and temporal trends of cardiovascular medicine-related meta-analyses published in the highest impact journals. Methods and Results Using the Medline database, we retrieved cardiovascular medicine-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in
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.