ReviewEJVES vascular forum2022
Systematic Reviews of the Literature Are Not Always Either Useful Or the Best Way To Add To Science.
Review in EJVES vascular forum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Foodborne Infections and Mortality Associated With Expressed Breastmilk, Donated Breastmilk, and Infant Formula in High-Income Countries: A Scoping Review of Peer-Reviewed Evidence Cases.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025Article
- Efficacy, Safety, and Injection Frequency with Novel Aflibercept 8 mg in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Comparison with Existing Anti-VEGF Regimens Using a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- How to Conduct a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Clinicians.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Reframing data ethics in research methods education: a pathway to critical data literacy.International journal of educational technology in higher education · 2023Article
- Legal issues and underexplored data protection in medical 3D printing: A scoping review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews are becoming more popular as a way of doing research; however, not all systematic reviews are clinically useful and sometimes another type of review (scoping, topical, or critical) would be of greater value to the clinical and scientific community. The different types of review and their use are described, illustrated by examples relevant to vascular surgery.
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.