SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Hematological parameters' reference intervals in apparently healthy individuals in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The study aimed to perform a systematic review/meta-analysis of observational studies conducted in Saudi Arabia to identify the patterns of reported hematological parameters' reference intervals (RIs). Methods: The literature search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Observational studies that reported hematological parameters measured under normal physiological conditions in apparently healthy individuals were included. Studies conducted on non-healthy individuals and/or on pregnant women; those related to basic science, methodology, physiology, and non-physiological state; and those conducted on patients having co-morbidities were excluded. Studies on the pediatric population were also excluded from the meta-analysis. The methodological quality was assessed using standard critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist. R software was used to run the random-effects models. The results were reported as weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. The complete blood count (CBC) parameter means were compared by sex using an independent samples Results: In total, 12 studies were included in the systematic review from all regions-Central ( Conclusion: The findings indicated some differences in the hematological parameters' RIs reported across Saudi Arabia. We recommend establishing hematological parameters' RIs based on the Saudi Arabian population to determine when to refer a patient with abnormal counts and to identify when to request further diagnostic work-up.
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.