Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36064741›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results-a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies.

Eva Draborg, Jane Andreasen, Birgitte Nørgaard, Carsten Bogh Juhl, Jennifer Yost, Klara Brunnhuber, Karen A Robinson, Hans Lund

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects of balance physical therapy with or without cognitive training in adults with cognitive and balance impairments : a systematic review.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2025
    Review
  3. Evidence-based research.Systematic reviews · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Eva DraborgDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. edraborg@sdu.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-5894-7243
Jane AndreasenDepartment of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark and Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Department of Health, Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark, Aalborg, Denmark.
Birgitte NørgaardDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Carsten Bogh JuhlDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark and Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark.
Jennifer YostM. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing, Villanova University, Villanova, USA.
Klara BrunnhuberDigital Content Services, Elsevier, London, UK.
Karen A RobinsonJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Hans LundSection of Evidence-Based Practice, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResults of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework.

resultsWe included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I

conclusionOur systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers' use of prior research systematically and transparently-also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/.

Indexed as

ContextEvidence-based researchSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36064741
PMCPMC9446778

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.