SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2023
Evolution of appraisal tool usage preferences in PROSPERO records: a study of non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Use of Botulinum Toxin Injections in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety Outcomes.Pain research & management · 2026Pooled it
- Prenatal psychological distress and neurodevelopmental trajectories in the first 3 years: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Tools used to appraise the quality of studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in human genetics: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy of acupuncture and related treatments on chronic pelvic inflammatory disease: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- TiRobot-assisted cannulated screw fixation for calcaneal fractures: a meta-analysis of surgical trauma, anatomical restoration, and functional recovery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis research-on-research substudy uses a data-driven approach to investigate the range of appraisal tools in non-Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). STUDY DESIGN AND
settingA comprehensive web scraping of all completed non-Cochrane registrations in PROSPERO from February 2011 to December 2017 was performed. The focus was classifying the appraisal tools based on study type, assessment aspects, and research topics.
resultsAfter analyzing 17,708 complete records, we found a predominant use of methodological quality assessment tools compared to those for reporting quality or risk of bias (RoB). This indicates a greater emphasis on methodological rigor in the studied protocols. Various tools for assessing methodological quality were observed, reflecting the complexity of such evaluations. Instruments designed for evaluating methodological or reporting quality were mainly intended for non-randomized clinical trials or observational studies, unlike RoB tools more commonly used in randomized clinical trials. No distinct trends in tool usage were observed in specific research conditions or domains, suggesting that tool choice is influenced more by study design than research topic.
conclusionThis study provides insights into the preferential use of various assessment tools in conducting non-Cochrane systematic reviews, as evidenced in PROSPERO records. The findings reveal various methodological assessment tools, underscoring their versatility across different study designs and research areas.
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.