Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27617203›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife2016

On the benefits of systematic reviews for wildlife parasitology.

Neal R Haddaway, Maggie J Watson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Smoking and risk of sleep-related issues: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Are we overestimating risk of enteric pathogen spillover from wild birds to humans?Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The diversity and impact of hookworm infections in wildlife.International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2017
    Review
  9. 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

2 authors.

Neal R HaddawayMISTRA EviEM, Stockholm Environment Institute, Box 24218, 104 51 Stockholm, Sweden.
Maggie J WatsonInstitute for Land Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are widely accepted as the best means to synthesise quantitative or qualitative scientific evidence. Many scientific fields have embraced these more rigorous review techniques as a means to bring together large and complex bodies of literature and their data. Unfortunately, due to perceived difficulties and unfamiliarity with processes, other fields are not using these options to review their literature. One way to provide guidance for a specific field is to examine critically recent reviews and meta-analyses and to explain the advantages and disadvantages of the various review techniques. In this paper, we examine review papers in the emerging field of wildlife parasitology and compare five different literature review types-configurative narrative review, aggregative scoping review, aggregative literature review, aggregative meta-analysis, and aggregative systematic review. We found that most literature reviews did not adequately explain the methodology used to find the literature under review. We also found that most literature reviews were not comprehensive nor did they critically appraise the literature under review. Such a lack severely reduces the reliability of the reviews. We encourage all authors to consider using systematic reviews in the future, and for authors and peer-reviewers to be aware of the limitations of non-systematic reviews.

Indexed as

ComprehensivenessLiterature reviewMeta-analysisParasitologyReliabilitySystematic reviewVote-countingWildlife

Identifiers

PMID27617203
PMCPMC5005428

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.