Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37768880›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2023

Ten simple rules for interpreting and evaluating a meta-analysis.

Rebecca B Carlson, Jennifer R Martin, Robert D Beckett

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic imaging modalities to detect regional nodal involvement in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Nine quick tips for open meta-analyses.PLoS computational biology · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
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

3 authors.

Rebecca B CarlsonHealth Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4380-8435
Jennifer R MartinHealth Sciences Library, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Robert D BeckettDepartment of Pharmacy, Parkview Health, Fort Wayne, Indiana, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Identifiers

PMID37768880
PMCPMC10538771

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.