Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35659294›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2022

The evidence synthesis and meta-analysis in R conference (ESMARConf): levelling the playing field of conference accessibility and equitability.

Neal R Haddaway, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Matthew J Grainger, W Kyle Hamilton, Emily A Hennessy, Ciara Keenan, Chris C Pritchard, Jana Stojanova

Open access · goldAbstract readLetterMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2022. 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

8 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Neal R HaddawayLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374, Müncheberg, Germany. neal_haddaway@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3902-2234
Alexandra Bannach-BrownBerlin Institute of Health at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, QUEST Center, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Matthew J GraingerNorwegian Institute for Nature Research, Postboks 5685 Torgarden, 7485, Trondheim, Norway.
W Kyle HamiltonPsychological Sciences, University of California Merced, Merced, CA, USA.
Emily A HennessyRecovery Research Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, 151 Merrimac Street, Boston, MA, USA.
Ciara KeenanSchool of Psychology, Queen's University, Belfast, UK.
Chris C PritchardInstitute of Health and Allied Professions, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.
Jana StojanovaDepartment of Department of Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Darlinghurst, Australia.
Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEMassachusetts General Hospital · USNorwegian Institute for Nature Research · NONottingham Trent University · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBSt Vincent's Hospital Sydney · AUUniversity of California, Merced · USUniversity of Johannesburg · ZA

Funding

Mechanisms of social identity, social networks, and recovery capital: Implicationsfor recoveryK01AA028536 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI HENNESSY, EMILY A · 2020 to 2024
$895k
NIAAA NIH HHS K01 AA028536
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rigorous evidence is vital in all disciplines to ensure efficient, appropriate, and fit-for-purpose decision-making with minimised risk of unintended harm. To date, however, disciplines have been slow to share evidence synthesis frameworks, best practices, and tools amongst one another. Recent progress in collaborative digital and programmatic frameworks, such as the free and Open Source software R, have significantly expanded the opportunities for development of free-to-use, incrementally improvable, community driven tools to support evidence synthesis (e.g. EviAtlas, robvis, PRISMA2020 flow diagrams and metadat). Despite this, evidence synthesis (and meta-analysis) practitioners and methodologists who make use of R remain relatively disconnected from one another. Here, we report on a new virtual conference for evidence synthesis and meta-analysis in the R programming environment (ESMARConf) that aims to connect these communities. By designing an entirely free and online conference from scratch, we have been able to focus efforts on maximising accessibility and equity-making these core missions for our new community of practice. As a community of practice, ESMARConf builds on the success and groundwork of the broader R community and systematic review coordinating bodies (e.g. Cochrane), but fills an important niche. ESMARConf aims to maximise accessibility and equity of participants across regions, contexts, and social backgrounds, forging a level playing field in a digital, connected, and online future of evidence synthesis. We believe that everyone should have the same access to participation and involvement, and we believe ESMARConf provides a vital opportunity to push for equitability across disciplines, regions, and personal situations.

Indexed as

SoftwareHumansCommunity of PracticeEquityEvidence synthesis technologyOnline conferencePay-it-forwardsSynthesisSystematic reviewVolunteer

Identifiers

PMID35659294
PMCPMC9164457
OpenAlexW4281609997

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.