ArticleHealth research policy and systems2015
Capacity for conducting systematic reviews in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid appraisal.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping the characteristics of network meta-analyses on drug therapy: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- The value of adding 'grey literature' in evidence synthesis for equity-driven global health: a case study from Small Island Developing States.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Using full agreement across multiple large language models for title-and-abstract screening in systematic reviews: a proof-of-concept.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Breaking silos, building bridges: leveraging Global Collaborative Evidence Networks for global health impact.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Quality of systematic reviews in African emergency medicine: a cross-sectional methodological study.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2023Article
- Academic contributions to the development of evidence and policy systems: an EPPI Centre collective autoethnography.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- The Cameroon Health Research and Evidence Database (CAMHRED): tools and methods for local evidence mapping.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Ethically Driven and Methodologically Tailored: Setting the Agenda for Systematic Reviews in Domestic Violence and Abuse.Journal of family violence · 2023Article
- Conceptual framework for systemic capacity strengthening for health policy and systems research.BMJ global health · 2022Review
- Developing a tool to assess the skills to perform a health technology assessment.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Period-prevalence and Publication Rate of Health Research Productivity in Seven Arabian Gulf Countries: Bibliometric Analysis from 1996 to 2018.Oman medical journal · 2021Article
- Article
- Collaboration on evidence synthesis in Africa: a network study of growing research capacity.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Health Care Workers in the setting of the "Arab Spring": a scoping review for the Lancet-AUB Commission on Syria.Journal of global health · 2019Article
- Medical research productivity in the Arab countries: 2007-2016 bibliometric analysis.Journal of global health · 2018Article
- Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey.International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
- Cochrane Africa: a network of evidence-informed health-care decision making across sub-saharan Africa.The Pan African medical journal · 2018Article
- The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic?Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- An institutional approach to support the conduct and use of health policy and systems research: The Nodal Institute in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews of research are increasingly recognised as important for informing decisions across policy sectors and for setting priorities for research. Although reviews draw on international research, the host institutions and countries can focus attention on their own priorities. The uneven capacity for conducting research around the world raises questions about the capacity for conducting systematic reviews.
methodsA rapid appraisal was conducted of current capacity and capacity strengthening activities for conducting systematic reviews in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systems approach to analysis considered the capacity of individuals nested within the larger units of research teams, institutions that fund, support, and/or conduct systematic reviews, and systems that support systematic reviewing internationally.
resultsInternational systematic review networks, and their support organisations, are dominated by members from high-income countries. The largest network comprising a skilled workforce and established centres is the Cochrane Collaboration. Other networks, although smaller, provide support for systematic reviews addressing questions beyond effective clinical practice which require a broader range of methods. Capacity constraints were apparent at the levels of individuals, review teams, organisations, and system wide. Constraints at each level limited the capacity at levels nested within them. Skills training for individuals had limited utility if not allied to opportunities for review teams to practice the skills. Skills development was further constrained by language barriers, lack of support from academic organisations, and the limitations of wider systems for communication and knowledge management. All networks hosted some activities for strengthening the capacities of individuals and teams, although these were usually independent of core academic programmes and traditional career progression. Even rarer were efforts to increase demand for systematic reviews and to strengthen links between producers and potential users of systematic reviews.
conclusionsLimited capacity for conducting systematic reviews within LMICs presents a major technical and social challenge to advancing their health systems. Effective capacity in LMICs can be spread through investing effort at multiple levels simultaneously, supported by countries (predominantly high-income countries) with established skills and experience.
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.