Observational studyBMC medical research methodology2022
Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study.
Observational study in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Effect of Music Therapy on Psychological Outcomes for Neurological Conditions: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Exploring alternative practice placement models in occupational therapy and physiotherapy: perspectives and experiences of learners and practice educators: a qualitative systematic review.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- Factors Influencing the Use of Tobacco Among Youth in Low-Income, Lower-Middle-Income, and Upper-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Journal of research in health sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Self-Care Experiences of Individuals with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Metasynthesis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A protocol for a systematic review of the psychosocial effects of experiencing compassion from others and its interpretation through secular and religious frameworks.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- The self-management support needs of people diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis: a realist review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Designing and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026Review
- Hand hygiene among cleaning staff in acute care hospitals: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a step-by-step guide for nephrologists.Renal failure · 2025Article
- Self-Management of Medications During Sick Days for Chronic Conditions: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Evaluating the prognostic association between race and perineal trauma: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Sport-specific impacts of ball games on adolescent brain function: a network meta-analysis of executive cognitive tasks.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Goal-oriented practices in youth mental health and wellbeing settings: A scoping review and thematic analysis of empirical evidence.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of Primary Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Strategies in East and Southeast Asia.Cancers · 2025Review
- What is life worth living for? A systematic review on meaning in life and meaning in work as protective factors for healthcare professionals' wellbeing.Health psychology report · 2025Review
- Occupational exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and cognitive impairment: Protocol of a systematic review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Life skills programmes for university-based wellness support services for students in health sciences professions: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Investigating the use of actor-network theory in healthcare: a protocol for a systematic review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Existing evidence on the use of environmental DNA as an operational method for studying rivers: a systematic map and thematic synthesis.Environmental evidence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRestrictions in systematic reviews (SRs) can lead to bias and may affect conclusions. Therefore, it is important to report whether and which restrictions were used. This study aims to examine the use of restrictions regarding language, publication period, and study type, as well as the transparency of reporting in SRs of effectiveness.
methodsA retrospective observational study was conducted with a random sample of 535 SRs of effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019. The use of restrictions and their reporting were analysed using descriptive statistics.
resultsOf the total 535 SRs included, four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of SRs did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included SRs, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the SRs with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. The restrictions were justified for publication period in 22.2% of the respective SRs (33/149), study type in 6.5% (28/433), and language in 3.2% (8/248). Differences in reporting were found between countries as well as between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
conclusionsThis study suggests that there is a lack of transparency in reporting on restrictions in SRs. Authors as well as editors and reviewers should be encouraged to improve the reporting and justification of restrictions to increase the transparency of SRs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.