Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28213479›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2017

Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses.

Marie Baudard, Amélie Yavchitz, Philippe Ravaud, Elodie Perrodeau, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Marie BaudardUniversité Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Amélie YavchitzUniversité Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France amelie.yavchitz@aphp.fr.
Philippe RavaudUniversité Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Elodie PerrodeauUniversité Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Isabelle BoutronUniversité Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Databases, PharmaceuticalMeta-Analysis as TopicRegistriesReview Literature as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID28213479
PMCPMC5421496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.