The Implications of Using Internet Search Engines in Structured Scientific Reviews.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The pipeline starts in medical school: characterizing clinician-educator training programs for U.S. medical students.Medical education online · 2022
   Article
2. (Re)search Filter Bubble Effect-An Issue Still Unfairly Neglected.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020
   Article
3. Characteristics, trend, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine: A bibliometric analysis of studies published between 2005 and 2016.Medicine · 2019
   Article
4. Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility.BMC medical research methodology · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as