Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37932825›Full record

ReviewJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2023

Enhancing study quality assessment: an in-depth review of risk of bias tools for meta-analysis-a comprehensive guide for anesthesiologists.

Alessandro De Cassai, Annalisa Boscolo, Francesco Zarantonello, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Nicolò Sella, Federico Geraldini, Marina Munari, Paolo Navalesi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 25 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 25 pooled it
18.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alessandro De CassaiSant'Antonio Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy. alessandro.decassai@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9773-1832
Annalisa BoscoloAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Francesco ZarantonelloAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Tommaso PettenuzzoAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Nicolò SellaAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Federico GeraldiniSant'Antonio Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Marina MunariSant'Antonio Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Paolo NavalesiAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
University of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundYearly, a multitude of randomized controlled trials are published, overwhelming clinicians with conflicting information; this data saturation leads to confusion and hinders clinicians' everyday decision-making. Hence, it is crucial to assess the quality and reliability of the evidence in order to consolidate it. Through this synthesis, clinicians can guarantee that their decisions are informed by solid evidence. Meta-analysis, a statistical technique, can effectively combine data from multiple studies to furnish accurate and dependable evidence for clinical practice and policy decisions. Nonetheless, the reliability of the obtained results depends on the use of high-quality evidence. MAIN BODY: Risk of bias is an assessment mandatory while performing a meta-analysis and is used to have an overview of the quality of the studies from which data are extracted. Several tools have been developed and are used to perform the risk of bias assessment. In this statistical round, we will provide an overview of the most used tools for both the randomized (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Jadad) and the nonrandomized (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) clinical trials.

conclusionWe provided an overview of the most used risk of bias tools used in meta-analysis.

Indexed as

BiasMeta-analysisStatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID37932825
PMCPMC10626791
OpenAlexW4388413012

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.