ArticleSystematic reviews2017
The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Food Service Professionals' Perspectives on the Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Nutrition Standards for School Food: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.The Journal of school health · 2026Pooled it
- The Efficacy of Psychosocial Interventions in Minimising the Harm Caused to Affected Others of Problem Gambling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of gambling studies · 2023Pooled it
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Pooled it
- Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2021Pooled it
- The EU-Joint Clinical Assessment Guidance Documents Fail to Address the Significance of Systematic Literature Reviews and Deviate from the State of the Art.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Health Implications of Radon Exposure Among Children: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Using GPT-4 for Title and Abstract Screening in a Literature Review of Public Policies: A Feasibility Study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Developing an Annual Review of the Literature.Journal of CME · 2025Article
- Ethical integrity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: challenges, pitfalls, and best practices in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Article
- Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Accelerated Resolution Therapy (ART) for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in adults: A systematic review.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- How to Conduct a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Clinicians.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Involvement of information specialists and statisticians in systematic reviews.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Review
- Communication skills training for improving the communicative abilities of student social workers.Campbell systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Machine learning computational tools to assist the performance of systematic reviews: A mapping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
- The conduct and reporting of qualitative evidence syntheses in health and social care guidelines: a content analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Teleconsultation adoption since COVID-19: Comparison of barriers and facilitators in primary care settings in Hong Kong and the Netherlands.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Review
- Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation.PloS one · 2021Article
- Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID-19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks.Journal of medical virology · 2020Article
- Invited commentary-WHO Classification of Tumours: How should tumors be classified? Expert consensus, systematic reviews or both?International journal of cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an increasing body of research documenting flaws in many published systematic reviews' methodological and reporting conduct. When good systematic review practice is questioned, attention is rarely turned to the composition of the team that conducted the systematic review. This commentary highlights a number of relevant articles indicating how the composition of the review team could jeopardise the integrity of the systematic review study and its conclusions. Key biases require closer attention such as sponsorship bias and researcher allegiance, but there may also be less obvious affiliations in teams conducting secondary evidence-syntheses. The importance of transparency and disclosure are now firmly on the agenda for clinical trials and primary research, but the meta-biases that systematic reviews may be at risk from now require further scrutiny.
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.