SynthesisWorldviews on evidence-based nursing2022
A guide to using technological applications to facilitate systematic reviews.
Synthesis in Worldviews on evidence-based nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Impact of Active Versus Passive Surveillance on Hepatitis C Virus Testing Uptake, Diagnosis and Linkage to Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Pooled it
- Digital Interventions and Mental Health Outcomes in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Barriers and facilitators of mental health help-seeking behaviours among school-going adolescents in Sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Review
- Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA systematic review (SR) synthesizes evidence in a reproducible way and informs evidence-based decision-making. SRs are time-intensive, particularly with respect to staying organized, maintaining records, and managing different phases of the process. Although there are numerous methodological guides to lead researchers in the approach to SRs to minimize bias and enhance rigor, there is less focus on technological approaches that can make the SR process easier for researchers.
aimTo guide researchers through the currently available technological applications that can assist with the SR process and synthesis of scientific literature. METHODOLOGY: Key ways that technological applications can facilitate the SR process are examined.
resultsSpecific applications are discussed and stratified by their support of one or multiple phases of the systematic review process. Key features, strengths, and limitations are provided for technological applications that support the SR process. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: This paper guides researchers in different ways technology can support SRs. Through use of these applications, the researcher can complete SRs in a timely manner and manage the process effectively.
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.