Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35416433›Full record

ArticleJournal of evidence-based medicine2022

An overview of methodological approaches in systematic reviews.

Prabhakar Veginadu, Hanny Calache, Mark Gussy, Akshaya Pandian, Mohd Masood

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive modalities for laryngotracheal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-Analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. An overview of methodological approaches in systematic reviews.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Prabhakar VeginaduDepartment of Rural Clinical Sciences, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5723-0996
Hanny CalacheDepartment of Rural Clinical Sciences, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.
Mark GussyLincoln International Institute for Rural Health, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, UK.
Akshaya PandianDepartment of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Mohd MasoodDepartment of Rural Clinical Sciences, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this overview is to identify and collate evidence from existing published systematic review (SR) articles evaluating various methodological approaches used at each stage of an SR.

methodsThe search was conducted in five electronic databases from inception to November 2020 and updated in February 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and APA PsycINFO. Title and abstract screening were performed in two stages by one reviewer, supported by a second reviewer. Full-text screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by two reviewers independently. The quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist.

resultsThe search retrieved 41,556 unique citations, of which 9 SRs were deemed eligible for inclusion in final synthesis. Included SRs evaluated 24 unique methodological approaches used for defining the review scope and eligibility, literature search, screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal in the SR process. Limited evidence supports the following (a) searching multiple resources (electronic databases, handsearching, and reference lists) to identify relevant literature; (b) excluding non-English, gray, and unpublished literature, and (c) use of text-mining approaches during title and abstract screening.

conclusionThe overview identified limited SR-level evidence on various methodological approaches currently employed during five of the seven fundamental steps in the SR process, as well as some methodological modifications currently used in expedited SRs. Overall, findings of this overview highlight the dearth of published SRs focused on SR methodologies and this warrants future work in this area.

Indexed as

Systematic Reviews as Topicknowledge synthesismethodologyoverviewsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID35416433
PMCPMC9322259

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.