Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18237350›Full record

ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2008

Motivating authors to update systematic reviews: practical strategies from a behavioural science perspective.

Ann-Margret Ervin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Ann-Margret ErvinDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. aervin@jhsph.edu

Funding

COCHRANE EYE AND VISION GROUP-COORDINATING RESOURCE CENTER-260021003N01EY021003 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2006 to 2006
–
NEI NIH HHS N01 EY021003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews are used by clinicians, policy makers and consumers of health care, and should provide up-to-date evidence for clinical decision making. Motivating systematic review authors to update reviews is a challenge, and despite resources such as methodologists and statisticians, many reviews are not updated in a timely manner. Conflicting clinical responsibilities, lack of funding or other essential resources, and waning interest in the review topic are potential barriers to updating. Illustrations of survey questions to elicit updating attitudes and beliefs, and conditions that make updating easier or more difficult within the framework of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, are presented. These surveys may be used to tailor interventions to assist authors with difficulties and may ultimately increase the rate of updates in the published literature.

Indexed as

AuthorshipBehavioral SciencesBibliometricsReview Literature as TopicAttitudeEvidence-Based MedicineHumansResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID18237350
PMCPMC4410721

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.