Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32145369›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2020

Future of evidence ecosystem series: 2. current opportunities and need for better tools and methods.

Perrine Créquit, Isabelle Boutron, Joerg Meerpohl, Hywel C Williams, Jonathan Craig, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in ASD treatment.North American Spine Society journal · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Perrine CréquitINSERM, UMR1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris, France; Direction de la recherche Clinique, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France.
Isabelle BoutronINSERM, UMR1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France.
Joerg MeerpohlInstitute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Medical Centre of the University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Hywel C WilliamsCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Jonathan CraigCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Philippe RavaudINSERM, UMR1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris, France; Direction de la recherche Clinique, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: philippe.ravaud@aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To become user driven and more useful for decision-making, the current evidence synthesis ecosystem requires significant changes (Paper 1. Future of evidence ecosystem series). Reviewers have access to new sources of data (clinical trial registries, protocols, and clinical study reports from regulatory agencies or pharmaceutical companies) for more information on randomized control trials. With all these newly available data, the management of multiple and scattered trial reports is even more challenging. New types of data are also becoming available: individual patient data and routinely collected data. With the increasing number of diverse sources to be searched and the amount of data to be extracted, the process needs to be rethought. New approaches and tools, such as automation technologies and crowdsourcing, should help accelerate the process. The implementation of these new approaches and methods requires a substantial rethinking and redesign of the current evidence synthesis ecosystem. The concept of a "living" evidence synthesis enterprise, with living systematic review and living network meta-analysis, has recently emerged. Such an evidence synthesis ecosystem implies conceptualizing evidence synthesis as a continuous process built around a clinical question of interest and no longer as a small team independently answering a specific clinical question at a single point in time.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicBiasData ManagementHumansResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAutomationClinical study reportCrowdsourcingEvidence synthesisLiving network meta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32145369

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.