Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39023639›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2024

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in neurosurgery part I: interpreting and critically appraising as a guide for clinical practice.

Keng Siang Lee, Julian Pt Higgins, Daniel M Prevedello

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Safety and efficacy of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone implants in primary and metastatic spinal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

3 authors.

Keng Siang LeeDepartment of Neurosurgery, King's College Hospital, London, UK. mrkengsianglee@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2308-0579
Julian Pt HigginsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Daniel M PrevedelloDepartment of Neurosurgery, Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurosurgeons are inundated with the Herculean task to keep abreast with the rapid pace at which clinical research is proliferating. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have consequently surged in popularity because when executed properly, they constitute the highest level of evidence, and may save busy neurosurgeons many hours of combing the literature. Well-executed SRMAs may prove instructive for clinical practice, but poorly conducted reviews sow confusion and may potentially cause harm. Unfortunately, many SRMAs within neurosurgery are relatively lackluster in methodological rigor. When neurosurgeons apply the results of an SRMA to patient care, they should start by evaluating the extent to which the employed methods have likely protected against misleading results. The present article aims to educate the reader about how to interpret an SRMA, to assess the potential relevance of its results in the special context of the neurosurgical patient population.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicNeurosurgeryHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresSystematic Reviews as TopicEvidence-based medicineMeta-analysisNeurosurgeryResearch methodologySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39023639

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.