SynthesisBMJ open2017
The quality of reports of medical and public health research from Palestinian institutions: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Undergraduate medical students' perspectives on research education and their confidence in research skills: a cross-sectional study from Palestine.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Towards researcher physicians in Palestine: resident doctors' perceptions, practices, and barriers.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Publication practices of medical students at medical schools in Palestine: experiences, attitudes, and barriers to publishing.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- State of Research Quality and Knowledge Transfer and Translation and Capacity Strengthening Strategies for Sound Health Policy Decision-Making in Palestine.International journal of public health · 2021Article
- The range and nature of reproductive health research in the occupied Palestinian territory: a scoping review.Reproductive health · 2019Article
- Assessing policy-makers', academics' and experts' satisfaction with the performance of the Palestinian health research system: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Understanding the concept and importance of the health research system in Palestine: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- A comparison between health research output and burden of disease in Arab countries: evidence from Palestine.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Research priority-setting: reproductive health in the occupied Palestinian territory.Reproductive health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOver the past decade, there has been an increase in reports of health research from Palestine, but no assessment of their quality. We have assessed the quality of reports of Palestinian health research and factors associated with it.
designThis is a systematic review. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We searched Medline and Scopus for reports of original research relevant to human health or healthcare authored by researchers affiliated with Palestinian institutions and published between January 2000 and August 2015 inclusive. OUTCOMES: We used international guidelines to assess report quality, classifying as adequate those with ≥50% of items completely addressed.
resultsOf 2383 reports identified, 497 met our inclusion criteria. Just over half (264; 55%) of these were published after 2010. 354 (71%) of first authors were affiliated with Palestinian institutions; 261 (53%) reports had coauthors from outside Palestine. The majority of the reports in our study were inadequately reported (342; 69%), and none had adequately reported all items. Of 439 observational studies, 11 (2.5%) reports provided adequate descriptions of eligibility criteria and selection procedures; 35 (8%) reported efforts to address potential sources of bias; 50 (11.4%) reported the basis for the study sample size; and funding sources were mentioned in 74 reports (17%). Higher reporting quality was associated with international affiliation of the first author (prevalence ratio (PR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1)), international collaboration (PR 2.9 (95% CI 1.7 to 5.0)), international funding (PR 1.9 (95% CI1.5 to 2.5)), publication after 2005 (PR 3.9 (95% CI 1.8 to 8.5)) and four or more coauthors (PR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.1)).
conclusionAlthough the quality of reports of Palestinian research has improved in recent years, it remains well below an acceptable standard. International reporting guidelines should be used to guide research design and improve the quality of reports of research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The systematic review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registery (registration number: CRD42015027553).
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.