Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN journal guidelines.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

1. Oral misoprostol (PGE1) vs vaginal dinoprostone (PGE2) for labor induction: individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
   Pooled it
2. Effectiveness of hormone add-on strategies in ovarian stimulation for women with poor ovarian response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
   Pooled it

Corrections and comments

• Erratum issued
  Correction to 'Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN Journal guidelines'.2026

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.