Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33863381›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2021

The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence.

Matthew J Page, David Moher, Fiona M Fidler, Julian P T Higgins, Sue E Brennan, Neal R Haddaway, Daniel G Hamilton, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara J Maxwell and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. How does vertical laminar fracture impact the decision-making in thoracolumbar fractures? A systematic scoping review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Effectiveness and safety of physical exercise and health education for the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

16 authors.

Matthew J PageSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia. matthew.page@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4242-7526
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Fiona M FidlerSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Julian P T HigginsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sue E BrennanSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia.
Neal R HaddawayMercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany.
Daniel G HamiltonSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Raju KanukulaSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia.
Sathya KarunananthanClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Lara J MaxwellFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Steve McDonaldSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia.
Shinichi NakagawaEvolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
David NunanCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Peter TugwellSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Vivian A WelchSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Joanne E McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvestigations of transparency, reproducibility and replicability in science have been directed largely at individual studies. It is just as critical to explore these issues in syntheses of studies, such as systematic reviews, given their influence on decision-making and future research. We aim to explore various aspects relating to the transparency, reproducibility and replicability of several components of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of health, social, behavioural and educational interventions.

methodsThe REPRISE (REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence) project consists of four studies. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting and sharing of review data, analytic code and other materials in a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020 (Study 1). We will survey authors of systematic reviews to explore their views on sharing review data, analytic code and other materials and their understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews (Study 2). We will then evaluate the extent of variation in results when we (a) independently reproduce meta-analyses using the same computational steps and analytic code (if available) as used in the original review (Study 3), and (b) crowdsource teams of systematic reviewers to independently replicate a subset of methods (searches for studies, selection of studies for inclusion, collection of outcome data, and synthesis of results) in a sample of the original reviews; 30 reviews will be replicated by 1 team each and 2 reviews will be replicated by 15 teams (Study 4). DISCUSSION: The REPRISE project takes a systematic approach to determine how reliable systematic reviews of interventions are. We anticipate that results of the REPRISE project will inform strategies to improve the conduct and reporting of future systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicReproducibility of ResultsSystematic Reviews as TopicMeta-analysisMethodologyQualityReplicationReproducibility of ResultsSystematic reviewsTransparency

Identifiers

PMID33863381
PMCPMC8052676

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.