Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36911350›Full record

ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2022

Neal R Haddaway, Matthew J Page, Chris C Pritchard, Luke A McGuinness

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,532citing papers in PubMed, 79 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

1,532 citing papers in PubMed, 79 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. 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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  9. Positive psychology interventions during pregnancy: A systematic review.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026
    Pooled it
  10. 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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. 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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Beyond the Kidney: A Systematic Review of Extrarenal Manifestations inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

1,472 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Neal R HaddawayLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg Germany.
Matthew J PageSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Australia.
Chris C PritchardInstitute of Health and Allied Professions Nottingham Trent University Nottingham UK.
Luke A McGuinnessDepartment of Population Health Sciences University of Bristol Bristol UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID36911350
PMCPMC8958186

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.