ArticleCureus2025
Meta-Analysis: A to Z for Healthcare Professionals.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meta-analysis is a powerful tool in evidence-based medicine, allowing researchers to synthesize findings from multiple studies to enhance clinical decision-making. This technical report provides a step-by-step guide on conducting a meta-analysis using JASP (Jeffreys's Amazing Statistics Program, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands), an open-source statistical software. Two case studies illustrate its application: (1) an analysis of the association between serum vitamin D levels and intraocular pressure in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and (2) an evaluation of the relationship between cardiovascular mortality and open-angle glaucoma (OAG). The study follows PRISMA guidelines and employs a random-effects model to account for heterogeneity. Results indicate no significant association between vitamin D and POAG (p = 0.122), while the cardiovascular disease-glaucoma meta-analysis shows high heterogeneity (I² = 99.54%). These findings highlight the challenges of interpreting meta-analyses with variable datasets. This report serves as a practical resource for researchers and clinicians, providing essential tools to conduct meta-analyses effectively and apply them in healthcare research.
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.