ArticleSystematic reviews2018
Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 14 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
80 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Involving adolescents in evidence syntheses: an umbrella review.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- People With Dementia Disclosing Their Diagnosis to Social Networks: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.The Gerontologist · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions for people with perceptual disorders after stroke: the PIONEER scoping review, Cochrane systematic review and priority setting project.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Outcomes of Best-Practice Guided Digital Mental Health Interventions for Youth and Young Adults with Emerging Symptoms: Part II. A Systematic Review of User Experience Outcomes.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- The clinical efficacy and safety of different biliary drainage in malignant obstructive jaundice: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Patients' perspectives on the relevance of biosimilars' outcomes in oncology: qualitative study with nominal group technique.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health: identification and treatment of wasting in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Conservative interventions for treating urinary incontinence in women: an Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Mind-Body Interventions to Treat Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Pooled it
- Quantitative Evidence Synthesis Methods for the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences for Clinical and Economic Decision Making: A Review and Taxonomy of Simplifying Assumptions.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Pooled it
- Gender-transformative programming with men and boys to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights: a systematic review of intervention studies.BMJ global health · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Beyond the Meeting: Patient and Public Involvement Practices and Barriers to Inclusive Participation in Stroke Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Reprioritising consultation in scoping reviews: Clarifying purposes and practices.Medical education · 2026Article
- Frameworks for Action: A Scoping Review of Organisational Patient Engagement Models in Healthcare.The International journal of health planning and management · 2026Article
- Evidence Map of Cochrane Reviews on Nutrition and Physical Activity in Healthy and At-Risk Populations: A Scoping Review.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2026Review
- Online interventions for dementia caregiver burden and self-efficacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.
methodsWe carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review.
resultsWe included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. DISCUSSION/
conclusionWe identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .
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.