Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39239125›Full record

ArticleInterventional pain medicine2022

Systematic reviews: Not always a pain.

Alexandra E Fogarty, Aaron Conger, Taylor Burnham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Alexandra E FogartyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Division of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Aaron CongerDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Taylor BurnhamDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews analyze the evidence surrounding a specific intervention within a population. High quality systematic reviews can help clinicians and policymakers accurately understand a treatment intervention. This article outlines the basic principles of systematic review development, including assembling a research team, defining the research question, publishing a protocol, designing and executing the search, study selection, extracting the data, assessing risk of bias, synthesizing the data and conducting a certainty assessment. In addition, we will address common pitfalls and highlight special considerations for the field of interventional pain medicine. Understanding systematic review methodology will help investigators improve their primary research and in turn, better primary literature will improve the value of high quality reviews.

Indexed as

Interventional painMethodologySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39239125
PMCPMC11373034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.