Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27048436›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016

Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic?

Katie MacLure, Vibhu Paudyal, Derek Stewart

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021
    Article
  15. How to Write a Systematic Review: A Narrative Review.International journal of preventive medicine · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. The Authors' Reply.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2017
    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

3 authors.

Katie MacLureSchool of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, Scotland, UK. k.m.maclure@rgu.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0686-948X
Vibhu PaudyalSchool of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, Scotland, UK.
Derek StewartSchool of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, AB10 7GJ, Scotland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Professor Archibald Cochrane, after whom the Cochrane Collaboration is named, was influential in promoting evidence-based clinical practice. He called for "relevant, valid research" to underpin all aspects of healthcare. Systematic reviews of the literature are regarded as a high quality source of cumulative evidence but it is unclear how truly systematic they, or other review articles, are or 'how systematic is systematic?' Today's evidence-based review industry is a burgeoning mix of specialist terminology, collaborations and foundations, databases, portals, handbooks, tools, criteria and training courses. Aim of the review This study aims to identify uses and types of reviews, key issues in planning, conducting, reporting and critiquing reviews, and factors which limit claims to be systematic. Method A rapid review of review articles published in IJCP. Results This rapid review identified 17 review articles published in IJCP between 2010 and 2015 inclusive. It explored the use of different types of review article, the variation and widely available range of guidelines, checklists and criteria which, through systematic application, aim to promote best practice. It also identified common pitfalls in endeavouring to conduct reviews of the literature systematically. Discussion Although a limited set of IJCP reviews were identified, there is clear evidence of the variation in adoption and application of systematic methods. The burgeoning evidence industry offers the tools and guidelines required to conduct systematic reviews, and other types of review, systematically. This rapid review was limited to the database of one journal over a period of 6 years. Although this review was conducted systematically, it is not presented as a systematic review. Conclusion As a research community we have yet to fully engage with readily available guidelines and tools which would help to avoid the common pitfalls. Therefore the question remains, of not just IJCP but potentially all published reviews, 'how systematic is systematic?'

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansCritical appraisalData extractionLiteratureReviewSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27048436
PMCPMC4909788

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.