9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review and metanalysis in urology: how to interpret the forest plot

      editorial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          COMMENT The systematic review follows rigid rules to find the best scientific evidence. This kind of publication aims to bring evidence together to answer a pre-defined research question. The research needs to make a search in all available databases. Systematic reviews should include a synthesis of the data that have been found. Data synthesis can involve summarizing quantitative and/or qualitative findings (1). Systematic reviews of quantitative data may include meta-analysis. The analysis of quantitative data in meta-analysis is the key to interpret the results of the study (1). In this comment we show the most important topics in the Forest plot interpretation. When studying we must be familiar with the various types of graphs used in a meta-analysis. In the left column of a quantitative data the author's name of the studies included in meta-analysis are registered (Figure-1) (2). Figure 1 The figure shows the quantitative data in a meta-analysis. In the left column (red square) we can observe the author's name of the studies included in meta-analysis. In the right column of the figure 2 we can observe the confidence intervals (CI) registered in the quantitative data of a meta-analysis. Some forest plots may also provide information about the weights assigned to each study or independent variable in the analysis (Figure-2). These weights can be represented by the size of the "boxes" on the plot or by a number associated with each study. In some situations, the authors can include the values of the mean, standard deviation (SD) and the mean difference assigned to each group studied in meta-analysis in the center of the graphic (Figure-3) (3). Figure 2 The figure shows the quantitative data in a meta-analysis. In the right column (red square) we can observe the confidence intervals (CI) and the weights assigned to each study. Figure 3 The figure shows the quantitative data in a meta-analysis. In column highlighted by the red square we can observe the mean, standard deviation (SD) and the mean difference assigned to each group studied in meta-analysis (2). The vertical axis of the forest plot typically represents the independent variables or individual studies included in the analysis. Each study or independent variable is represented by a line on the plot (Figure-4). The horizontal axis usually represents the outcome measure or estimated effect. It can be a measure of risk, such as odds ratio or hazard ratio, or a measure of difference, such as mean difference or proportion difference (Figure-4). The vertical lines represent the confidence intervals for each study or independent variable. The length of the line indicates the precision of the estimate. The longer the line, the less precise the estimate. The central line in each "box" represents the point estimate for each study or independent variable. It can be the point estimate or the weighted average of the studies (Figure 4). If the confidence intervals of different lines do not overlap, it suggests that there is a statistically significant difference between the represented studies or independent variables. If the lines cross the null vertical line (typically a vertical line at a value of 1 or 0), it indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the compared interventions or independent variables (Figure-4). Figure 4 The figure shows the quantitative data in a meta-analysis – the Forest plot. In the column highlighted by the red square we can observe the vertical axis of the forest plot (independent variables or individual studies included in the analysis) and the horizontal axis (represents the outcome measure or estimated effect). The vertical lines represent the confidence intervals for each study or independent variable. The central line in each "box" represents the point estimate for each study or independent variable. If the confidence intervals of different lines do not overlap, it suggests that there is a statistically significant difference between the represented studies or independent variables. If the lines cross the null vertical line (typically a vertical line at a value of 1 or 0), it indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the compared interventions or independent variables (2). The value of each study depends on the sample size and precision, which will receive weight values. These weight values will be evaluated to compound the diamond represent the final result. Diamond size determined by 95% CI if not touching the vertical line represents that the final result is statistically significant (left – better intervention/ Right – better control group) If the diamond touches the line represents the studies do not have statistical significance (Figure-5). Figure 5 The figure shows the Diamond in a Forest plot. The diamond represents the value of each study (size determined by 95% CI). If the diamond is not touching the vertical line represents that the final result is statistically significant. If the diamond touches the line represents the studies do not have statistical significance. The legends and annotations in the plot may provide additional information about the studies or independent variables included in the analysis, the outcome measures used, and other relevant statistics. Remember that the precise interpretation of the forest plot may depend on the specific context of the study or analysis. If you have any doubts about a specific forest plot, it's always advisable to consult the cited references or seek the assistance of an expert in the field.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Dietary and circulating vitamin D and risk of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies

          ABSTRACT Objective: This meta-analysis is the first to evaluate the associations of circulating and dietary intake of vitamin D with risk of risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Our findings showed that higher circulating vitamin D level and dietary vitamin D intake were associated with a reduced risk of RCC. The possible explanation might be attributed to the anti-inflammatory effect, inhibiting cell proliferation, inducing cell differentiation and apoptosis. Materials and Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases from their inception points through December 2018 for observational studies. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: A total of 9 publications were included in this meta-analysis. An overall analysis of the highest versus lowest intake levels revealed that circulating vitamin D level was protectively associated with risk of RCC 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.89, P=0.001), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2=38.8%, P=0.162). In addition, dietary vitamin D intake was associated with a reduced risk of RCC (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 75-0.99, P=0.030). Statistical heterogeneity was not identified (I2=28.8%, P=0.199). Subgroup analyses results showed the gender differences, and the associations were significant in results with women participants (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88) and case-control studies (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.95). Conclusion: Higher circulating vitamin D level and higher dietary vitamin D intake both might be associated with a reduced risk of RCC. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required in the future to confirm our results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            An introduction to Systematic Reviews

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              An introduction to systematic reviews

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int Braz J Urol
                Int Braz J Urol
                ibju
                International Brazilian Journal of Urology : Official Journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
                Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
                1677-5538
                1677-6119
                07 February 2024
                Nov-Dec 2023
                : 49
                : 6
                : 775-778
                Affiliations
                [1 ] orgnameUniversidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro orgdiv1Unidade de Pesquisa Urogenital Rio de Janeiro RJ Brasil originalUnidade de Pesquisa Urogenital - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - Uerj, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil;
                [2 ] orgnameHospital Federal da Lagoa Rio de Janeiro RJ Brasil originalServiço de Urologia, Hospital Federal da Lagoa, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
                Author notes
                Luciano A. Favorito, MD, PhD Unidade de Pesquisa Urogenital da Universidade do Estado de Rio de Janeiro - UERJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil E-mail: lufavorito@ 123456yahoo.com.br
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1562-6068
                Article
                S1677-5538.IBJU.2023.9911
                10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2023.9911
                10947628
                37624659
                188dcbb5-3d34-43b7-b6c2-c4af19cae7e8

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 22 July 2023
                : 10 August 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 3, Pages: 4
                Categories
                Expert Opinion

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content6,186

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors61