Evidence mapPaperPMID 37890100Full record

ReviewDiabetes care2023

A Primer on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Diabetes Research.

Deirdre K Tobias, Stefania Papatheodorou, Jennifer M Yamamoto, Frank B Hu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetes care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Deirdre K TobiasDivision of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-0020-9552
Stefania PapatheodorouDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Jennifer M YamamotoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, and Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3556-0820
Frank B HuNutrition Department, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-8233-6274

Funding

DIETARY PATTERNS AND RISK OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASER01HL060712 · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · 1998 to 2005
$763k
Lifestyle Interventions, metabolites, microbiome, and diabetes riskR01DK127601 · NIDDK · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI Frank B Hu, Miguel Ruiz-Canela · 2023 to 2023
$466k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL060712NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK127601
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A systematic review is a rigorous process that involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing available evidence pertaining to an a priori-defined research question. The resulting evidence base may be summarized qualitatively or through a quantitative analytic approach known as meta-analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMAs) have risen in popularity across the scientific realm including diabetes research. Although well-conducted SRMAs are an indispensable tool in informing evidence-based medicine, the proliferation of SRMAs has led to many reviews of questionable quality and misleading conclusions. The objective of this article is to provide up-to-date knowledge and a comprehensive understanding of strengths and limitations of SRMAs. We first provide an overview of the SRMA process and offer ways to identify common pitfalls at key steps. We then describe best practices as well as evolving approaches to mitigate biases, improve transparency, and enhance rigor. We discuss several recent developments in SRMAs including individual-level meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, umbrella reviews, and prospective meta-analyses. Additionally, we outline several strategies that can be used to enhance quality of SRMAs and present key questions that authors, editors, and readers should consider in preparing or critically reviewing SRMAs.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusBiasEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicProspective StudiesResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID37890100
PMCPMC10620547

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.