ReviewInnovative surgical sciences2025
Surgical systematic reviews: best available evidence or disposable waste?
Review in Innovative surgical sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine demands treatment options for patients to be based on the current best available evidence. Systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses allow surgeons to make therapeutical decisions in accordance with the highest level of evidence. Also, high-quality SRs support physicians to challenge the colossal amount of new research data created daily. The systematic review working group of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery (SDGC) has created specific methodological literature regarding surgical SRs, giving recommendations to assess critical risk of bias and to prevent the creation of SRs that do not provide any new insights to the field. SRs should only be considered if there is new clinically relevant data available that allows the SR to create novel evidence. To address the dilemma of new SRs generated without adding new evidence, living systematic reviews and evidence mapping represent an innovative approach, in which SRs are regularly updated with new research data.
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.