ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2022
Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,532 papers, 79 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
1,532 citing papers in PubMed, 79 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effectiveness of protein supplements on athletic performance and post-exercise recovery - a Bayesian multilevel meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Biomarkers of kidney involvement in paediatric IgA vasculitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Pooled it
- The Use of Blue Light as an Antimicrobial Treatment Against Staphylococcus aureus: A Systematic Review.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence of Slowly Expanding Lesions in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neurology · 2026Pooled it
- HIV care cascade of adolescents and young adults in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Machine Learning and Deep Learning for the Diagnosis of Cervical Degenerative Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Restorative resection in robot-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Structured exercise and cardiac outcomes during anthracycline or anti-HER2 therapy in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Positive psychology interventions during pregnancy: A systematic review.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026Pooled it
- Primary care practitioners' experiences managing urinary tract infections: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Pooled it
- Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation patients on dialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Pooled it
- Posterior spinal fusion with pedicle screw-based constructs in osteogenesis imperfecta: a systematic review of surgical and radiographic outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Pooled it
- Work-focused cognitive behavioural therapy for common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of weight loss interventions for knee osteoarthritis.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Cocreation and codesign in maternal health: processes, outcomes and implementation challenges.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Pooled it
- Sexual and gender minority parents' experiences of lactation: a meta-ethnographic review.International breastfeeding journal · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond the Kidney: A Systematic Review of Extrarenal Manifestations inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Behavioral and Psychosocial Effects of Participant-Visible Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults Without Diabetes: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser versus conventional holmium:YAG laser in anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Growth hormone deficiency: craniofacial characteristics and changes after growth hormone therapy - a systematic review.Endocrine · 2026Pooled it
1,472 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy-to-use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of a tool for the production of PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Methods and Findings: We developed a free-to-use, Open Source R package and web-based Shiny app to allow users to design PRISMA flow diagrams for their own systematic reviews. Our tool allows users to produce standardised visualisations that transparently document the methods and results of a systematic review process in a variety of formats. In addition, we provide the opportunity to produce interactive, web-based flow diagrams (exported as HTML files), that allow readers to click on boxes of the diagram and navigate to further details on methods, results or data files. We provide an interactive example here; https://prisma-flowdiagram.github.io/. Conclusions: We have developed a user-friendly tool for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams for users with coding experience and, importantly, for users without prior experience in coding by making use of Shiny (https://estech.shinyapps.io/prisma_flowdiagram/). This free-to-use tool will make it easier to produce clear and PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Significantly, users can also produce interactive flow diagrams for the first time, allowing readers of their reviews to smoothly and swiftly explore and navigate to further details of the methods and results of a review. We believe this tool will increase use of PRISMA flow diagrams, improve the compliance and quality of flow diagrams, and facilitate strong science communication of the methods and results of systematic reviews by making use of interactivity. We encourage the systematic review community to make use of the tool, and provide feedback to streamline and improve their usability and efficiency.
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.