Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35052219›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Quotation Accuracy of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols on Acupuncture.

José M Morán, María Romero-Moreno, Azucena Santillán-García, Ivan Herrera-Peco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

José M MoránMetabolic Bone Diseases Research Group, Nursing Department, Nursing and Occupational Therapy College, Universidad de Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5538-182X
María Romero-MorenoMetabolic Bone Diseases Research Group, Nursing Department, Nursing and Occupational Therapy College, Universidad de Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain.
Azucena Santillán-GarcíaUniversity Hospital of Burgos, Universitario de Burgos, 09006 Burgos, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7376-4170
Ivan Herrera-PecoNursing Department, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Alfonso X El Sabio, 28691 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5183-5679

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, published systematic review protocols (SR protocols) have increasingly become a new trend in fields such as acupuncture and are therefore a new source of quotations in these fields. Systematic reviews are considered the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid as they embody comprehensive literature searching. Quotations are key elements to achieve this goal as they can support the assertions of the original authors, but the 'misquotation' exists, too, and they can be misleading to the reader. The aim of this study was to examine the quotation accuracy of SR protocols in a meta-analysis on acupuncture research. We searched SCOPUS through 31 December, 2020, and each protocol and its citations were analyzed and classified as correct or incorrect. We used descriptive statistics to report the quotation errors and characteristics of the included protocols. The results showed 248 SR protocols, where 124 protocols received quotations and 38 quotations (31.4%) were erroneous. Only 11 (4.4%) of the published SRs and SR protocols had been published previously. Furthermore, the scientific journal in which the most SR protocols were published was Medicine (193; 77.8%), followed by BMJ Open (39; 15.7%). Authors from China (86.5%) were the most productive in publishing SRs and SR protocols. Finally, we concluded that the number of SR protocols and meta-analyses published in scientific journals and indexed by databases exceeds the publication capacity of the SRs associated with them, generating scientific literature that does not make any novel contribution to knowledge.

Indexed as

acupuncturesystematic review protocolssystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID35052219
PMCPMC8775708

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.