Assessing the risk of bias in single-arm trials for systematic reviews: moving towards a more reliable evaluation of clinical evidence.

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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

1. The use of computed tomography during follow-up after ablation of cT1 renal cell carcinoma: evidence for overuse.European radiology · 2026
   Pooled it
2. Efficacy and Toxicity of Pemigatinib in Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma Harboring FGFR Fusions or Rearrangements: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Targeted oncology · 2025
   Pooled it
3. Clinical, neurophysiological and neurochemical effects of non-invasive electrical brain stimulation in fibromyalgia syndrome-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
   Pooled it

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.