ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2020
Future of evidence ecosystem series: 1. Introduction Evidence synthesis ecosystem needs dramatic change.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.
- Building evidence on digital psychotherapies for adults living with depression: a systematic scoping review of populations, interventions and design features of ongoing and planned randomised controlled trials.BMJ mental health · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in ASD treatment.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Mapping health evidence ecosystem in Brazil: a mixed-methods study protocol for developing a framework.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Post-publication peer review and the identification of methodological and reporting issues in COVID-19 trials: a qualitative study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Ethical challenges for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in the evolving evidence landscape.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Review
- Making Science Computable Using Evidence-Based Medicine on Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources: Standards Development Project.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Making guidelines computable.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2024Article
- Risk of drug use during pregnancy: master protocol for living systematic reviews and meta-analyses performed in the metaPreg project.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Decision-makers' experiences with rapid evidence summaries to support real-time evidence informed decision-making in crises: a mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Levels of Evidence Supporting United States Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Treatment.Cancers · 2022Article
- Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Challenges of evidence synthesis during the 2020 COVID pandemic: a scoping review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Establishing a Regulatory Science System for Supervising the Application of Artificial Intelligence for Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Methodological Framework.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis article presents why the planning, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions are suboptimal. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe present an overview of the limitations of the current system of evidence synthesis for therapeutic interventions.
resultsSystematic reviews and meta-analyses are a cornerstone of health care decisions. However, despite the increasing a number of published systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions, the current evidence synthesis ecosystem is not properly addressing stakeholders' needs. The current production process leads to a series of disparate systematic reviews because of erratic and inefficient planning with a process that is not always comprehensive and is prone to bias. Evidence synthesis depends on the quality of primary research, so primary research that is not available is biased or selectively reported raises important concerns. Moreover, the lack of interactions between the community of primary research producers and systematic reviewers impedes the optimal use of data. The context has considerably evolved, with ongoing research innovations, a new medical approach with the end of the one-size-fits-all approach, more available data, and new patient expectations. All these changes must be introduced into the future evidence ecosystem.
conclusionDramatic changes are needed to enable this future ecosystem to become user driven and user oriented and more useful for decision-making.
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.