Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25117057›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2014

Intervention synthesis: a missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s).

Paul P Glasziou, Iain Chalmers, Sally Green, Susan Michie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Application of the Knowledge-to-Action framework in translating nutrition and dietetic knowledge into practice: A systematic review.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Paul P GlasziouCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Iain ChalmersJames Lind Initiative, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sally GreenAustralasian Cochrane Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Susan MichieCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paul Glasziou and colleagues discuss methods to guide selection of an intervention from individual trials within a systematic review. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID25117057
PMCPMC4130663

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.