Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34660516›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2021

Keeping Meta-Analyses Hygienic During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Jordane Boudesseul, Oulmann Zerhouni, Allie Harbert, Clio Rubinos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

Jordane BoudesseulFacultad de Psicología, Instituto de Investigación Científica, Universidad de Lima, Lima, Peru.
Oulmann ZerhouniUniversity Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France.
Allie HarbertSchool of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Clio RubinosDepartment of Neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the massive distribution of different vaccines globally, the current pandemic has revealed the crucial need for an efficient treatment against COVID-19. Meta-analyses have historically been extremely useful to determine treatment efficacy but recent debates about the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients resulted in contradictory meta-analytical results. Different factors during the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted key features of conducting a good meta-analysis. Some meta-analyses did not evaluate or treat substantial heterogeneity (

Indexed as

COVID-19Meta-Analysis as TopicPandemicsAzithromycinHumansHydroxychloroquineAzithromycinHydroxychloroquineCOVID−19heterogeneityhydroxychloroquinemeta-analysispublication bias

Identifiers

PMID34660516
PMCPMC8511714

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.