ArticleSystematic reviews2015
Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from 'what works' to 'what happens'.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 15 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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Social connectedness and disconnectedness in individuals with recent onset psychosis and suicidal experiences: a systematic review of the evidence.BMC psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Supported employment interventions with people who have severe mental illness: Systematic mixed-methods umbrella review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Prepulse inhibition deficit as a transdiagnostic process in neuropsychiatric disorders: a systematic review.BMC psychology · 2023Pooled it
- The impact of economic sanctions on health and health systems in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Governance of Intersectoral Collaborations for Population Health and to Reduce Health Inequalities in High-Income Countries: A Complexity-Informed Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Pooled it
- The efficacy of web or mobile-based interventions to alleviate emotional symptoms in people with advanced cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Theory-based strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to undergraduate health students: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2019Pooled it
- Title: Can changing the physical environment promote walking and cycling? A systematic review of what works and how.Health & place · 2019Pooled it
- Electronic Systems for Patients to Report and Manage Side Effects of Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions integrating health and academic interventions to prevent substance use and violence: a systematic review and synthesis of process evaluations.Systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Rating the quality of a body of evidence on the effectiveness of health and social interventions: A systematic review and mapping of evidence domains.Research synthesis methods · 2018Pooled it
- The importance of service-users' perspectives: A systematic review of qualitative evidence reveals overlooked critical features of weight management programmes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Pooled it
- What is the impact on health and wellbeing of interventions that foster respect and social inclusion in community-residing older adults? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.Systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Use of programme theory to understand the differential effects of interventions across socio-economic groups in systematic reviews-a systematic methodology review.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- Incorporating an equity perspective in systematic reviews of interventions: potential methodological approaches.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2026Review
- Clinical research on homeopathic preparations: protocol template for a series of systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Framework for evidence synthesis of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine systems incorporating context and complexity, illustrated by the example of homeopathy.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Umbrella Reviews: Concepts, Methodological Frameworks, and Step-by-Step Implementation.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2025Review
2 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Systematic review methods are developing rapidly, and most researchers would recognise their key methodological aspects, such as a closely focussed question, a comprehensive search, and a focus on synthesising 'stronger' rather than 'weaker' evidence. However, it may be helpful to question some of these underlying principles, because while they work well for simpler review questions, they may result in overly narrow approaches to more complex questions and interventions. This commentary discusses some core principles of systematic reviews, and how they may require further rethinking, particularly as reviewers turn their attention to increasingly complex issues, where a Bayesian perspective on evidence synthesis, which would aim to assemble evidence - of different types, if necessary - in order to inform decisions', may be more productive than the 'traditional' systematic review model. Among areas identified for future research are the examination of publication bias in qualitative research; research on the efficiency and potential biases of comprehensive searches in different disciplines; and the use of Bayesian methods in evidence synthesis. The incorporation of a systems perspective into systematic reviews is also an area which needs rapid development.
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.