Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32850123›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2020

An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P.

Alison Booth, Alex S Mitchell, Andrew Mott, Sophie James, Sarah Cockayne, Samantha Gascoyne, Catriona McDaid

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alison BoothDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7138-6295
Alex S MitchellDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9311-2092
Andrew MottDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7844-9033
Sophie JamesDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1878-2779
Sarah CockayneDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1288-5497
Samantha GascoyneDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Catriona McDaidDepartment of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3751-7260
University of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Research DesignResearch ReportBiasHumansResearch PersonnelSystematic Reviews as TopicprotocolregistrationreportingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32850123
PMCPMC7431973
OpenAlexW3044386486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.