Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31720912›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2020

A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research.

Taulant Muka, Marija Glisic, Jelena Milic, Sanne Verhoog, Julia Bohlius, Wichor Bramer, Rajiv Chowdhury, Oscar H Franco

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 308 papers, 108 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
308citing papers in PubMed, 108 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

308 citing papers in PubMed, 108 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Survival and larynx function after upfront vs. salvage total laryngectomy: a meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

248 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Taulant MukaInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012, Bern, Switzerland. taulant.muka@ispm.unibe.ch.
Marija GlisicInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Jelena MilicDepartment of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia.
Sanne VerhoogInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Julia BohliusInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Wichor BramerMedical Library, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rajiv ChowdhuryDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Oscar H FrancoInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To inform evidence-based practice in health care, guidelines and policies require accurate identification, collation, and integration of all available evidence in a comprehensive, meaningful, and time-efficient manner. Approaches to evidence synthesis such as carefully conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools to summarize specific topics. Unfortunately, not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, and their quality can vary substantially. Since well-conducted evidence synthesis typically involves a complex set of steps, we believe formulating a cohesive, step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis is essential. While most of the guidelines on systematic reviews focus on how to report or appraise systematic reviews, they lack guidance on how to synthesize evidence efficiently. To facilitate the design and development of evidence syntheses, we provide a clear and concise, 24-step guide on how to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and clinical trials. We describe each step, illustrate it with concrete examples, and provide relevant references for further guidance. The 24-step guide (1) simplifies the methodology of conducting a systematic review, (2) provides healthcare professionals and researchers with methodologically sound tools for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and (3) it can enhance the quality of existing evidence synthesis efforts. This guide will help its readers to better understand the complexity of the process, appraise the quality of published systematic reviews, and better comprehend (and use) evidence from medical literature.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicGuidelines as TopicHumans24 StepsEvidence synthesisGuidelineMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31720912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.