SynthesisTrials2010
Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Trials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrimination and calibration performances of non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based cardiovascular risk predictions: a systematic review.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- A rapid review of the barriers and facilitators of mental health service access among Veterans and their families.Frontiers in health services · 2024Pooled it
- How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Environmentally friendly, but behaviorally complex? A systematic review of e-scooter riders' psychosocial risk features.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review.Trials · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review of the quality of reporting in published smoking cessation trials for pregnant women: an explanation for the evidence-practice gap?Implementation science : IS · 2014Pooled it
- Centre selection for clinical trials and the generalisability of results: a mixed methods study.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- A Digital Tool for Clinical Evidence-Driven Guideline Development by Studying Properties of Trial Eligible and Ineligible Populations: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Study protocol: Evaluation of the 'real-world' Farmers Have Hearts - Cardiovascular Health Program.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- The TRANSFER Approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Towards greater understanding of implementation during systematic reviews of complex healthcare interventions: the framework for implementation transferability applicability reporting (FITAR).BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Assessing the applicability of public health intervention evaluations from one setting to another: a methodological study of the usability and usefulness of assessment tools and frameworks.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- The use of random-effects models to identify health care center-related characteristics modifying the effect of antipsychotic drugs.Clinical epidemiology · 2017Article
- Cluster Sampling Bias in Government-Sponsored Evaluations: A Correlational Study of Employment and Welfare Pilots in England.PloS one · 2016Article
- Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration.International journal for equity in health · 2015Review
- Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles.Systematic reviews · 2014Review
- Coverage of mental health and substance misuse topics in the Cochrane review system.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2013Review
- Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network.BMC medicine · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the study was to evaluate systematic reviews of research into two public health priorities, tobacco consumption and HIV infection, in terms of the reporting of data related to the applicability of trial results (i.e., whether the results of a trial can be reasonably applied or generalized to a definable group of patients in a particular setting in routine practice, also called external validity or generalisability).
methodsAll systematic reviews of interventions aimed at reducing or stopping tobacco use and treating or preventing HIV infection published in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews and in journals indexed in MEDLINE between January 1997 and December 2007 were selected. We used a standardized data abstraction form to extract data related to applicability in terms of the context of the trial, (country, centres, settings), participants (recruitment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics of participants such as age, sex, ethnicity, coexisting diseases or co-morbidities, and socioeconomic status), treatment (duration, intensity/dose of treatment, timing and delivery format), and the outcomes assessment from selected reviews.
resultsA total of 98 systematic reviews were selected (57 Cochrane reviews and 41 non-Cochrane reviews); 49 evaluated interventions aimed at reducing or stopping tobacco use and 49 treating or preventing HIV infection. The setting of the individual studies was reported in 45 (46%) of the systematic reviews, the number of centres in 21 (21%), and the country where the trial took place in 62 (63%). Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the included studies were reported in 16 (16%) and 13 (13%) of the reviews, respectively. Baseline characteristics of participants in the included studies were described in 59 (60%) of the reviews. These characteristics concerned age in about half of the reviews, sex in 46 (47%), and ethnicity in 9 (9%).Applicability of results was discussed in 13 (13%) of the systematic reviews. The reporting was better in systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration than by non-Cochrane groups.
conclusionsOur study highlighted the lack of consideration of applicability of results in systematic reviews of research into 2 public health priorities: tobacco consumption and HIV infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.