Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26530621›Full record

ArticleLancet (London, England)2015

How systematic reviews cause research waste.

Ian Roberts, Katharine Ker

Abstract readLetterComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ian RobertsClinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK. Electronic address: ian.roberts@lshtm.ac.uk.
Katharine KerClinical Trials Unit, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

ResearchBiomedical Research

Identifiers

PMID26530621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.