ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2020
Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence-informed guidelines in oral health: insights from a systematic survey.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Gender equality in leadership of HIV care cascade clinical trials: A methodological study.HIV medicine · 2025Article
- The use of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis: an evaluation of fidelity and reporting.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Using systems perspectives in evidence synthesis: A methodological mapping review.Research synthesis methods · 2022Review
- The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research - a systematic review.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Review
- Outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of major depressive disorder in older adults: protocol for a methodological review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA relatively novel method of appraisal, methodological reviews (MRs) are used to synthesize information on the methods used in health research. There are currently no guidelines available to inform the reporting of MRs.
objectivesThis pilot review aimed to determine the feasibility of a full review and the need for reporting guidance for methodological reviews.
methodsSearch strategy: We conducted a search of PubMed, restricted to 2017 to include the most recently published studies, using different search terms often used to describe methodological reviews: "literature survey" OR "meta-epidemiologic* review" OR "meta-epidemiologic* survey" OR "methodologic* review" OR "methodologic* survey" OR "systematic survey."Data extraction: Study characteristics including country, nomenclature, number of included studies, search strategy, a priori protocol use, and sampling methods were extracted in duplicate and summarized.Outcomes: Primary feasibility outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the search terms (criteria for success of feasibility set at sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 70%).Analysis: The estimates are reported as a point estimate (95% confidence interval).
resultsTwo hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved and 31 were included in the final analysis. The most accurate search term was "meta-epidemiological" (sensitivity [Sn] 48.39; 95% CI 31.97-65.16; specificity [Sp] 97.56; 94.42-98.95). The majority of studies were published by authors from Canada (
conclusionsUsing the MR nomenclature identified, it is feasible to build a comprehensive search strategy and conduct a full review. Given the variation in reporting practices and nomenclature attributed to MRs, there is a need for guidance on standardized and transparent reporting of MRs. Future guideline development would likely include stakeholders from Canada, USA, and Japan.
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.