ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2020
A Narrative Review and Proposed Framework for Using Health System Data with Systematic Reviews to Support Decision-making.
Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk factors and outcomes of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective-multicentre cohort study and systematic literature review.Lupus science & medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Microangiopathic Hemolytic Anemia Is a Late and Fatal Complication of Gastric Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Case-Control Study.The oncologist · 2022Pooled it
- Presentation and outcomes of adrenal ganglioneuromas: A cohort study and a systematic review of literature.Clinical endocrinology · 2021Pooled it
- Verrucous esophageal carcinoma is a unique indolent subtype of squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and individual patient regression analysis.Journal of gastroenterology · 2021Pooled it
- Maternal and fetal outcomes in phaeochromocytoma and pregnancy: a multicentre retrospective cohort study and systematic review of literature.The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical utility of artificial intelligence models in radiology: a systemic scoping review of diagnostic and endovascular applications.CVIR endovascular · 2025Review
- Liberia health system's journey to long-term recovery and resilience post-Ebola: a case study of an exemplary multi-year collaboration.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Review
- Early switch to oral antibiotic therapy for the treatment of patients with bacterial native vertebral osteomyelitis: a quaternary center experience, systematic review, and meta-analysis.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2022Review
- Integration of patient and clinician narratives into systematic reviews: An applied proof of concept.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Systematic reviews are a necessary, but often insufficient, source of information to address the decision-making needs of health systems. In this paper, we address when and how the use of health system data might make systematic reviews more useful to decision-makers. We describe the different ways in which health system data can be used with systematic reviews, identify scenarios in which the addition of health system data may be most helpful (i.e., to improve the strength of evidence, to improve the applicability of evidence, and to inform the implementation of evidence), and discuss the importance of framing the limitations and considerations when using unpublished health system data in reviews. We developed a framework to guide the use of health system data alongside systematic reviews based on a narrative review of the literature and empirical experience. We also offer recommendations to improve the transparency of reporting when using health system data alongside systematic reviews including providing rationale for employing additional data, details on the data source, critical appraisal to understand study design biases as well as limitations in data and information quality, and how the unpublished data compares to the systematically reviewed data. Future methodological work on how best to handle internal and external validity concerns of health system data in the context of systematically reviewed data and work on developing infrastructure to do this type of work is needed.
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.