ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2016
Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sexual Dysregulation After Traumatic Brain Injury and Stroke: A Critical Narrative Review of Neurobiology, Clinical Phenotypes, and Management.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurse Practitioners: Addressing the Growing Mental Health Needs of the Population-A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Social and physical environmental correlates of movement behaviors, body weight status, and well-being among adolescents in Nigeria: a youth-centered participatory action project narrative review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Review
- A multi-faceted analysis of disability and poverty in the Polokwane Local Municipality: A narrative review.African journal of disability · 2026Review
- Commentary: Internal medicine at the crossroads of long COVID diagnosis and management.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Approaches to Studying Religion and Public Health: A Narrative Review and Interdisciplinary Framework.Journal of religion and health · 2025Review
- Literature reviews: typology and forensic applications.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- Influence of Leadership on Human-Artificial Intelligence Collaboration.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Unlocking Self-Esteem in Older Adults: A Conceptual Exploration of Technological Proficiency and Its Effects.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Similarities and Differences Between Bullying and Sexual Harassment in Schools: A Social-Ecological Review of Risk and Protective Factors.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The role of virulence genes inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Supporting linkage facilitators working with persons with opioid use disorder: challenges, advances, and future directions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- A Review of Agentic AI in Cybersecurity: Cognitive Autonomy, Ethical Governance, and Quantum-Resilient Defense.F1000Research · 2025Review
- A Narrative Review of Research on Cannabis Advertising in the United States.Current addiction reports · 2025Review
- Narrative review of the prognostic significance of primary tumor size in thymic epithelial tumor.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 2025Review
- From Agriculture to Clinics: Unlocking the Potential of Magnetized Water for Planetary and Human Health.Cureus · 2024Review
- Narrative review of telemedicine applications in decentralized research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Review
- A Narrative Review of Recent Antibiotic Prescribing Practices in Ambulatory Care in Tanzania: Findings and Implications.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- How do mobility device users integrate their devices into occupational performance? A narrative literature review.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2023Review
- A Narrative Review of Antibiotic Prescribing Practices in Primary Care Settings in South Africa and Potential Ways Forward to Reduce Antimicrobial Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
As the size of the published scientific literature has increased exponentially over the past 30 years, review articles play an increasingly important role in helping researchers to make sense of original research results. Literature reviews can be broadly classified as either "systematic" or "narrative". Narrative reviews may be broader in scope than systematic reviews, but have been criticised for lacking synthesis and rigour. The submission of more scientific manuscripts requires more researchers acting as peer reviewers, which requires adding greater numbers of new reviewers to the reviewing population over time. However, whereas there are many easily accessible guides for reviewers of primary research manuscripts, there are few similar resources to assist reviewers of narrative reviews. Here, I summarise why literature reviews are valued by their diverse readership and how peer reviewers with different levels of content expertise can improve the reliability and accessibility of narrative review articles. I then provide a number of recommendations for peer reviewers of narrative literature reviews, to improve the integrity of the scientific literature, while also ensuring that narrative review articles meet the needs of both expert and non-expert readers.
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.