SynthesisScientific reports2022
A methodological review with meta-epidemiological analysis of preclinical systematic reviews with meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ethnobotany, Phytochemistry, and Pharmacological Activities ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Quercetin-associated cardioprotection in preclinical myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Umbrella review of mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles in preclinical models: therapeutic efficacy across diverse conditions.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been proposed as an approach to synthesize the literature and counteract the lack of power of small preclinical studies. We aimed to evaluate (1) the methodology of these reviews, (2) the methodological quality of the studies they included and (3) whether study methodological characteristics affect effect size. We searched MEDLINE to retrieve 212 systematic reviews with meta-analyses of preclinical studies published from January, 2018 to March, 2020. Less than 15% explored the grey literature. Selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate in less than two thirds of reviews. Most of them assessed the methodological quality of included studies and reported the meta-analysis model. The risk of bias of included studies was mostly rated unclear. In meta-epidemiological analysis, none of the study methodological characteristics was associated with effect size. The methodological characteristics of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of recently published preclinical studies seem to have improved as compared with previous assessments, but the methodological quality of included studies remains poor, thus limiting the validity of their results. Our meta-epidemiological analysis did not show any evidence of a potential association between methodological characteristics of included studies and effect size.
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.