Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24050381›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2013

Cochrane methods--twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods.

Jackie Chandler, Sally Hopewell

Abstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
–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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Premature ventricular contraction-induced ventricular dysfunction in children without structural heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Relationship between cadmium content in semen and male infertility: a meta-analysis.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019
    Pooled it
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Jackie ChandlerThe Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK. jchandler@cochrane.org.
Sally Hopewell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This year, The Cochrane Collaboration reached its 20th anniversary. It has played a pivotal role in the scientific development of systematic reviewing and in the development of review methods to synthesize research evidence, primarily from randomized trials, to answer questions about the effects of healthcare interventions. We introduce a series of articles, which form this special issue describing the development of systematic review methods within The Cochrane Collaboration. We also discuss the impact of Cochrane Review methods, and acknowledge the breadth and depth of methods development within The Cochrane Collaboration as part of the wider context of evidence synthesis. We conclude by considering the future development of methods for Cochrane Reviews.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineInformation ServicesResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicBiomedical ResearchDatabases, BibliographicHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24050381
PMCPMC3849105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.