Do meta-analyses in nephrology change the way we treat patients? Sumit Mohan, Jai Radhakrishnan  Kidney International  Volume 78, Issue 11, Pages 1080-1087 (December 2010) DOI: 10.1038/ki.2010.323 Copyright © 2010 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Exponential increase in published meta-analyses in the four leading nephrology journals. Kidney International 2010 78, 1080-1087DOI: (10.1038/ki.2010.323) Copyright © 2010 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Mean number of meta-analyses referenced in the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines expressed as a percentage of all references included in guidelines published that year. Kidney International 2010 78, 1080-1087DOI: (10.1038/ki.2010.323) Copyright © 2010 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 NYSN survey respondent characteristics. (a) Distribution of primary workplace of our respondents. (b) Duration in practice as reported by respondents to our survey. Kidney International 2010 78, 1080-1087DOI: (10.1038/ki.2010.323) Copyright © 2010 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Ranking of different study designs in degrees of relative influence by survey respondents. Kidney International 2010 78, 1080-1087DOI: (10.1038/ki.2010.323) Copyright © 2010 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Perception of meta-analyses among NYSN survey respondents. (a) Responses when asked if meta-analyses are original research similar to randomized controlled trials. (b) Response to whether respondents considered meta-analyses a source of evidence-based medicine. (c) Responses to whether respondents have had meta-analyses directly influence their patient care. Kidney International 2010 78, 1080-1087DOI: (10.1038/ki.2010.323) Copyright © 2010 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions