ArticleAmerican journal of public health2017
Evidence and Health Policy: Using and Regulating Systematic Reviews.
Article in American journal of public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence of childhood mental disorders in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis to inform policymaking.Evidence-based mental health · 2022Pooled it
- International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids 2016 Debate: For Science-Based Dietary Guidelines on Fats, Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews Are Decisive.Annals of nutrition & metabolism · 2017Pooled it
- Systematic Review: A Method at Risk for Being Corrupted.American journal of public health · 2017Pooled it
- The data transparency crisis in research: Lessons from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Mobile App-Supported Self-Management for Chronic Low Back Pain: Realist Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Determinants and outcomes of advanced practice nurses' leadership behaviours: an AI-aided mixed-methods systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Quantifying and explaining heterogeneity in meta-analytic structural equation modeling: Methods and illustrations.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Mobile apps to self-manage chronic low back pain: A realist synthesis exploring what works, for whom and in what circumstances.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Designing and assessing a data literacy internship program for graduate health sciences students.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Stakeholder Involvement in Systematic Reviews: Lessons From Cochrane's Public Health and Health Systems Network.American journal of public health · 2021Article
- Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they?Environment international · 2021Article
- Efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2021Review
- A question of trust: can we build an evidence base to gain trust in systematic review automation technologies?Systematic reviews · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews have, increasingly, informed policy for almost 3 decades. In many countries, systematic reviews have informed policy for public and population health, paying for health care, increasing the quality and efficiency of interventions, and improving the effectiveness of health sector professionals and the organizations in which they work. Systematic reviews also inform other policy areas: criminal justice, education, social welfare, and the regulation of toxins in the environment. Although the production and use of systematic reviews has steadily increased, many clinicians, public health officials, representatives of commercial organizations, and, consequently, policymakers who are responsive to them, have been reluctant to use these reviews to inform policy; others have actively opposed using them. Systematic reviews could inform policy more effectively with changes to current practices and the assumptions that sustain these practices-assumptions made by researchers and the organizations that employ them, by public and private funders of systematic reviews, and by organizations that finance, set priorities and standards for, and publish them.
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.