ReviewCureus2016
How to Conduct a Systematic Review: A Narrative Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 11 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-clinician communication in longitudinal care settings about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and adult traumas: A systematic review of reviews.Patient education and counseling · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A systematic review of cost and well-being in hip and knee replacements surgical site infections.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Apps targeting anorexia nervosa in young people: a systematic review of active ingredients.Translational behavioral medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Dying for a change: a systematic review of compassionate release policies.International journal of prisoner health · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of behavioral sleep interventions on children's and mothers' sleep quality and maternal depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Beyond Refeeding: The Effect of Including a Dietitian in Eating Disorder Treatment. A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2021Pooled it
- Bio-Psycho-Socio-Spirito-Cultural Factors of Burnout: A Systematic Narrative Review of the Literature.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Direct Communication Between Brains: A Systematic PRISMA Review of Brain-To-Brain Interface.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2021Pooled it
- Black American and Latinx Parent/Caregiver Participation in Digital Health Obesity Interventions for Children: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Pooled it
- Strengthening complex systems for chronic disease prevention: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2019Pooled it
- Neuropsychological and metabolic interconnectivity in obesity, anorexia and bulimia nervosa - an integrative literature review.Metabolic brain disease · 2026Review
- Study protocol for evaluating automation of systematic review processes with EPPI-Reviewer and Copilot 365 in updating the cataract evidence gap map.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Narratives in Conflict and Practices of Face-to-Face and Online Intergroup Communication.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Value landscapes in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and assessment: exploring indeterminacies and disconnects.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2026Article
- Sustainable Workplaces and Employee Well-Being: A Systematic Review of ESG-Linked Physical Activity Programs.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Patch Testing: Comprehensive Review of Current Applications and Future Prospects in Dermatology.JMIR dermatology · 2025Review
- Review
- Patient and clinician perceptions of telehealth in musculoskeletal physiotherapy services - A systematic review of the evidence-base.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews are ranked very high in research and are considered the most valid form of medical evidence. They provide a complete summary of the current literature relevant to a research question and can be of immense use to medical professionals. Our goal with this paper is to conduct a narrative review of the literature about systematic reviews and outline the essential elements of a systematic review along with the limitations of such a review.
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.