Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28655142›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2017

Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people.

Susan D Shenkin, Jennifer K Harrison, Tim Wilkinson, Richard M Dodds, John P A Ioannidis

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 49 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 17 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in older people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in older people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Susan D ShenkinGeriatric Medicine Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Jennifer K HarrisonGeriatric Medicine Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Tim WilkinsonCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Richard M DoddsAcademic Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
John P A IoannidisDepartment of Medicine, Health Research and Policy, Biomedical Data Science, and Statistics, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, California, USA.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700704Medical Research Council MR/K026992/1Medical Research Council MR/P001823/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written-and if possible published-before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews.

Indexed as

AgingBiomedical ResearchGeriatricsHealth Services for the AgedResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Services ResearchHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as Topicmeta-analysismethodologyolder peoplesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28655142
PMCPMC5860219

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.