ArticleRenal failure2025
Critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a step-by-step guide for nephrologists.
Article in Renal failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence-powered renal pathology for glomerular disease classification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Renal failure · 2026Pooled it
- Male reproductive surgeries and long-term kidney outcomes: a Mendelian randomization and meta-analysis of UK Biobank and FinnGen.Renal failure · 2026Pooled it
- Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in dialysis patients after ACHIEVE and ALCHEMIST: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials.Renal failure · 2026Pooled it
- Pharmacologic and Nutritional Therapies in Idiopathic Male Infertility: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Andrology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and Tolerability of Sodium Zirconium Cyclosilicate or Patiromer in Managing Hyperkalemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Kidney360 · 2026Pooled it
- Factors associated with postoperative acute kidney injury in stanford type a aortic dissection in china: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Probiotic mediated modulation of neonatal health: a meta-analysis of prematurity-related morbidity, jaundice, and respiratory distress.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Frailty risk prediction models in maintenance hemodialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of model performance and methodological quality.Renal failure · 2025Pooled it
- The role of reviewers in the era of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A practical guide for researchers.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Guideline
- Systematic Review of Exercise Training and Musculoskeletal Health in Patients Receiving Dialysis.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses play a pivotal role in evidence-based medicine, including nephrology, by consolidating findings from multiple studies. To maximize their utility, rigorous quality assessment during peer review is essential. Challenges such as heterogeneity, bias, and methodological flaws often undermine these studies, necessitating a structured appraisal process.
methodsThis guide outlines a framework for nephrologists on appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Key areas include heterogeneity assessment using the I
resultsThe I
conclusionBy focusing on key areas such as heterogeneity, risk of bias, and robust statistical methods, this guide enables nephrologists to critically appraise systematic reviews and meta-analyses, fostering better clinical decision-making and improved patient care in nephrology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.