Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36213594›Full record

ReviewPain reports

The power of integrating data: advancing pain research using meta-analysis.

Joel Fundaun, Elizabeth T Thomas, Annina B Schmid, Georgios Baskozos

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pain reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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.

Joel FundaunNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth T ThomasNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Annina B SchmidNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Georgios BaskozosNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9237-5878

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/W002388/1MRF_ MRF-160-0013-ELP-SCHM-C0842Versus Arthritis 22465Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Publications related to pain research have increased significantly in recent years. The abundance of new evidence creates challenges staying up to date with the latest information. A comprehensive understanding of the literature is important for both clinicians and investigators involved in pain research. One commonly used method to combine and analyse data in health care research is meta-analysis. The primary aim of a meta-analysis is to quantitatively synthesise the results of multiple studies focused on the same research question. Meta-analysis is a powerful tool that can be used to advance pain research. However, there are inherent challenges when combining data from multiple sources. There are also numerous models and statistical considerations when undertaking a meta-analysis. This review aims to discuss the planning and preparation for completing a meta-analysis, review commonly used meta-analysis models, and evaluate the clinical implications of meta-analysis in pain research.

Indexed as

Common-effectFixed-effectIndividual participant dataMeta-analysisMeta-regressionNetworkPrevalenceRandom-effects

Identifiers

PMID36213594
PMCPMC9534369

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.