Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40046710›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2025

Systematic review meta-analysis protocol preparation and registration - A narrative review.

Indubala Maurya, Rakesh Garg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Indubala MauryaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Kalyan Singh Super Specialty Cancer Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3593-2313
Rakesh GargDepartment of Onco-Anaesthesia, Pain and Palliative Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5842-8024

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) help in decision making, especially on conflicting publication findings and quality. SRMA identifies the source of heterogeneity, reduces subjectivity and identifies and fills gaps in existing knowledge. However, conducting an SRMA requires a well-written protocol, which acts as a clear roadmap for the researcher and defines objectives, methods and expected outcomes. Predefined research questions and methods minimise bias, thus increasing the reliability of the results. The protocol ensures that the study team stays consistent in data collection, synthesis and interpretation. The SRMA protocol includes rationale, hypothesis, aims and methodology. A detailed protocol improves the overall quality of the research. All SRMA protocols must be registered and made available publicly. Protocol registration ensures transparency in the research process, which avoids the wastage of resources and prevents duplication. A well-planned protocol facilitates faster peer review and enhances the chances for publication. This narrative review primarily focuses on SRMA protocol preparation and its registration.

Indexed as

Meta-analysisPRISMAPROSPEROprotocolregistrationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40046710
PMCPMC11878364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.