ReviewSystematic reviews2012
How explicable are differences between reviews that appear to address a similar research question? A review of reviews of physical activity interventions.
Review in Systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physical activity interventions for older adults - an overview of systematic reviews.BMC public health · 2026Review
- Is There an Academic Bias against Low-Energy Sweeteners?Nutrients · 2022Article
- Tools for assessing the content of guidelines are needed to enable their effective use--a systematic comparison.BMC research notes · 2014Article
- Review
- A description of the methodology used in an overview of reviews to evaluate evidence on the treatment, harms, diagnosis/classification, prognosis and outcomes used in the management of neck pain.The open orthopaedics journal · 2013Article
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
backgroundSystematic reviews are promoted as being important to inform decision-making. However, when presented with a set of reviews in a complex area, how easy is it to understand how and why they may differ from one another?
methodsAn analysis of eight reviews reporting evidence on effectiveness of community interventions to promote physical activity. We assessed review quality and investigated overlap of included studies, citation of relevant reviews, consistency in reporting, and reasons why specific studies may be excluded.
resultsThere were 28 included studies. The majority (n = 22; 79%) were included only in one review. There was little cross-citation between reviews (n = 4/28 possible citations; 14%). Where studies appeared in multiple reviews, results were consistently reported except for complex studies with multiple publications. Review conclusions were similar. For most reviews (n = 6/8; 75%), we could explain why primary data were not included; this was usually due to the scope of the reviews. Most reviews tended to be narrow in focus, making it difficult to gain an understanding of the field as a whole.
conclusionsIn areas where evaluating impact is known to be difficult, review findings often relate to uncertainty of data and methodologies, rather than providing substantive findings for policy and practice. Systematic 'maps' of research can help identify where existing research is robust enough for multiple in-depth syntheses and also show where new reviews are needed. To ensure quality and fidelity, review authors should systematically search for all publications from complex studies. Other relevant reviews should be searched for and cited to facilitate knowledge-building.
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.