ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2012
Multiple systematic reviews: methods for assessing discordances of results.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation in motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Pooled it
- Wearable Devices to Improve Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Behaviour: An Umbrella Review.Sports medicine - open · 2024Pooled it
- Accuracy of optical coherence tomography for diagnosing glaucoma: an overview of systematic reviews.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2021Pooled it
- Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- Article
- Effectiveness and safety of virtual reality rehabilitation after stroke: an overview of systematic reviews.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Structured approach with primary and secondary survey for major trauma care: an overview of reviews.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Review
- An evaluation of the COVID-19 recommendation map identified diverging clinical and public health guidance.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- Autologous bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cell therapy for osteonecrosis of femoral head: A systematic overview of overlapping meta-analyses.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of stop smoking interventions among adults: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and an updated systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Methological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on acupuncture for stroke: A review of review.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2017Review
- The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe process of systematically reviewing research evidence is useful for collecting, assessing and summarizing results from multiple studies planned to answer the same clinical question. The term "systematic" implies that the process, besides being organized and complete, is transparent and fully reported to allow other independent researchers to replicate the results, and therefore come to the same conclusions. Hundreds of new systematic reviews are indexed every year. The growing number increases the likelihood of finding multiple and discordant results.
objectivesTo clarify the impact of multiple and discordant systematic reviews, we designed a program aimed at finding out: (a) how often different systematic reviews are done on the same subject; (b) how often different systematic reviews on the same topic give different results or conclusions; (c) which methods or interpretation characteristics can explain the differences in results or conclusions.
methodsThis paper outlines the method used to explore the frequency and the causes of discordance among multiple systematic reviews on the same topic. These methods were then applied to a few medical fields as case studies.
conclusionThis aim is particularly relevant for both clinicians and policy makers. Judgments about evidence and recommendation in health care are complex, and often rely on discordant results, especially when there are no empirical results to help serve as a guideline.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22941412What 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.