ArticlePLoS medicine2010
Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?
Article in PLoS medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 412 papers, 23 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
412 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: Systematic Review of Clinical Implementation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Meta-analysis: clinical outcomes of laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in hyperopia.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of acupuncture on musculoskeletal pain: an evidence map.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Question answering systems for health professionals at the point of care-a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Pooled it
- Quality assessment and umbrella review of systematic reviews about dance for people with Parkinson's disease.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Evidence mapping of traditional Chinese medicine in diabetic peripheral neuropathy treatment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic online living evidence summaries: emerging tools to accelerate evidence synthesis.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Pooled it
- Delphi survey on the most promising areas and methods to improve systematic reviews' production and updating.Systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Cemented vs Uncemented hemiarthroplasties for femoral neck fractures: An overlapping systematic review and evidence appraisal.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Using a Taxonomy to Systematically Identify and Describe Self-Management Interventions Components in Randomized Trials for COPD.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Conservative interventions for treating urinary incontinence in women: an Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Feasibility study and evaluation of expert opinion on the semi-automated meta-analysis and the conventional meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Automatic data extraction to support meta-analysis statistical analysis: a case study on breast cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Pooled it
- Identification of tools used to assess the external validity of randomized controlled trials in reviews: a systematic review of measurement properties.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Interventions to Improve Child Physical Activity in the Early Childhood Education and Care Setting: An Umbrella Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- PsychOpen CAMA: Publication of community-augmented meta-analyses in psychology.Research synthesis methods · 2022Pooled it
- Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Deep Neural Network for Reducing the Screening Workload in Systematic Reviews for Clinical Guidelines: Algorithm Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
352 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
When Archie Cochrane reproached the medical profession for not having critical summaries of all randomised controlled trials, about 14 reports of trials were being published per day. There are now 75 trials, and 11 systematic reviews of trials, per day and a plateau in growth has not yet been reached. Although trials, reviews, and health technology assessments have undoubtedly had major impacts, the staple of medical literature synthesis remains the non-systematic narrative review. Only a small minority of trial reports are being analysed in up-to-date systematic reviews. Given the constraints, Archie Cochrane's vision will not be achieved without some serious changes in course. To meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policymakers, unnecessary trials need to be reduced, and systematic reviews need to be prioritised. Streamlining and innovation in methods of systematic reviewing are necessary to enable valid answers to be found for most patient questions. Finally, clinicians and patients require open access to these important resources.
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.