SynthesisEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Tools used to appraise the quality of studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in human genetics: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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.
- Insights in genetics: from molecular mechanisms to patient perspectives.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
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
Quality assessment of primary studies is an essential component of systematic reviews (SRs). This methodological review systematically examines the choice, format and utilization of critical appraisal (CA) tools in SRs with or without meta-analyses in the field of human genetics. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed up to January 2024. Two reviewers independently performed title, abstract, full-text screening and data extraction. This PROSPERO registered methodological review followed PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis and full-scale risk-of-bias assessment of SRs were not relevant. Among 149 randomly selected SRs, 136 mentioned CA tools (156 citations). Nineteen different generic tools constituted 71.2% of citations. NOS, QUADAS and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool represented 36.5, 11.5, and 8.3% of tools, respectively. Ninety-three reviews stated following reporting guidelines, with 22 PRISMA checklists accessible. Detailed presentation of results was observed for 65.8% of generic and 37.8% of customized tools (p = 0.0013). Results for NOS were less often detailed than for other generic tools (p < 0.0001). Few SRs used CA results for study selection, data analysis, or discussion of findings. In conclusion, this first review of CA tools in human genetics SRs highlights a lack of transparency regarding utilization of CA tools and deficiencies in reporting of CA results.Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023449349).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.