Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38502022›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2024

Comparisons of various estimates of the

Yipeng Wang, Natalie DelRocco, Lifeng Lin

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Refined trial sequential analysis for meta-analyses with few studies.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Reinterpreting ICochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Yipeng WangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-9559-0810
Natalie DelRoccoDepartment of Population and Public Health Sciences, Division of Biostatistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lifeng LinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, Tucson, AZ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3562-9816

Funding

Statistical Methods and Software for Multivariate Meta-analysisR01LM012982 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI LIN, LIFENG, SIEGEL, LIANNE · 2019 to 2022
$1.3M
Joint modeling of continuous and binary data in meta-analysisR03MH128727 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI LIN, LIFENG · 2022 to 2023
$146k
NIMH NIH HHS R03 MH128727NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012982
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing heterogeneity between studies is a critical step in determining whether studies can be combined and whether the synthesized results are reliable. The

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalConfidence intervalcoverage probabilityheterogeneityI2 statisticmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID38502022
PMCPMC11759644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.