SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2023
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect ofCurrent pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2024Pooled it
- Current Knowledge and Utilization of Medicinal Plants and Fungi in Northeastern Croatia.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Phytochemical Targeting of Nerve Growth Factor by Thymoquinone and Cuscutin: A Molecular Dynamics Simulation Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Variation in the Composition and Quality ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Enhancement of Female Rat Fertility via Ethanolic Extract fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- How Thymoquinone fromCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2023Review
- Exploring the short-term influence of a proprietary oil extract of black cumin (Frontiers in nutrition · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Objectives: This overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses aimed to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality, and to grade the available evidence of associations between Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched from their inception to September 30, 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 statement, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 checklist, and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) systems were used to assess the reporting, methodological, and evidence quality for each meta-analysis, respectively. The results were synthesized in a narrative form. Results: This overview included 20 eligible meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals between 2013 and 2021. The overall methodological quality was relatively poor, with only one moderate quality, four low quality, and 15 critically low quality studies. For reporting quality, items two, five, eight, nine, 15, and 24 need to improve. Among the 110 outcome indicators of the quality of evidence, five were graded as moderate, 17 as low, and 88 as very low. Risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision were the main downgrading factors. Conclusion: This overview suggests that
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.