SynthesisSystematic reviews2017
Acceptance of a systematic review as a thesis: survey of biomedical doctoral programs in Europe.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Web-Based Educational Intervention to Improve Knowledge of Systematic Reviews Among Health Science Professionals: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Systematic Reviews as Part of Doctoral Theses and for the Promotion to Associate Professor: A Descriptive Study of University Policies in Sweden.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Changing minds and methods: providing health sciences faculty with alternatives to systematic reviews assignments.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- From Thesis to Publication: A Five-Year Cross-Disciplinary Analysis in Pathology, Urology, and Endocrinology (2018-2022).Turk patoloji dergisi · 2026Article
- Inclusion, characteristics and methodological limitations of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all universities in Sweden.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Exploring librarians' practices when teaching advanced searching for knowledge synthesis: results from an online survey.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews Performed As An Undergraduate thesis in A Peruvian University: A Systematic Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- Creating an online educational intervention to improve knowledge about systematic reviews among healthcare workers: mixed-methods pilot study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Academia Europaea Position Paper on Translational Medicine: The Cycle Model for Translating Scientific Results into Community Benefits.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Systematic Review Reporting - Writing concisely and precisely.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) have been proposed as a type of research methodology that should be acceptable for a graduate research thesis. The aim of this study was to analyse whether PhD theses in European biomedical graduate programs can be partly or entirely based on SRs.
methodsIn 2016, we surveyed individuals in charge of European PhD programs from 105 institutions. The survey asked about acceptance of SRs as the partial or entire basis for a PhD thesis, their attitude towards such a model for PhD theses, and their knowledge about SR methodology.
resultsWe received responses from 86 individuals running PhD programs in 68 institutions (institutional response rate of 65%). In 47% of the programs, SRs were an acceptable study design for a PhD thesis. However, only 20% of participants expressed a personal opinion that SRs meet the criteria for a PhD thesis. The most common reasons for not accepting SRs as the basis for PhD theses were that SRs are 'not a result of a PhD candidate's independent work, but more of a team effort' and that SRs 'do not produce enough new knowledge for a dissertation'. The majority of participants were not familiar with basic concepts related to SRs; questions about meta-analyses and the type of plots frequently used in SRs were correctly answered by only one third of the participants.
conclusionsRaising awareness about the importance of SRs and their methodology could contribute to higher acceptance of SRs as a type of research that forms the basis of a PhD thesis.
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.