Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38179256›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2023

Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability.

Nour Shaheen, Ahmed Shaheen, Alaa Ramadan, Mahmoud Tarek Hefnawy, Abdelraouf Ramadan, Ismail A Ibrahim, Maged Elsayed Hassanein, Mohamed E Ashour, Oliver Flouty

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 22 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 22 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. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Patient-reported emotional responses and coping mechanisms in cancer recurrence: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

4 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

9 authors.

Nour ShaheenAlexandria Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Ahmed ShaheenAlexandria Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Alaa RamadanFaculty of Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt.
Mahmoud Tarek HefnawyFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Abdelraouf RamadanFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ismail A IbrahimFaculty of Health Sciences, Fenerbahce University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Maged Elsayed HassaneinFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Mohamed E AshourAlexandria Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Oliver FloutyDepartment of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in evidence-based practices as they consolidate research findings to inform decision-making. However, it is essential to assess the quality of systematic reviews to prevent biased or inaccurate conclusions. This paper underscores the importance of adhering to recognized guidelines, such as the PRISMA statement and Cochrane Handbook. These recommendations advocate for systematic approaches and emphasize the documentation of critical components, including the search strategy and study selection. A thorough evaluation of methodologies, research quality, and overall evidence strength is essential during the appraisal process. Identifying potential sources of bias and review limitations, such as selective reporting or trial heterogeneity, is facilitated by tools like the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the AMSTAR 2 checklist. The assessment of included studies emphasizes formulating clear research questions and employing appropriate search strategies to construct robust reviews. Relevance and bias reduction are ensured through meticulous selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Accurate data synthesis, including appropriate data extraction and analysis, is necessary for drawing reliable conclusions. Meta-analysis, a statistical method for aggregating trial findings, improves the precision of treatment impact estimates. Systematic reviews should consider crucial factors such as addressing biases, disclosing conflicts of interest, and acknowledging review and methodological limitations. This paper aims to enhance the reliability of systematic reviews, ultimately improving decision-making in healthcare, public policy, and other domains. It provides academics, practitioners, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, empowering them to make well-informed decisions based on robust data.

Indexed as

bias evaluationquality assessmentsystematic reviewsystematic review appraisalsystematic review methodology

Identifiers

PMID38179256
PMCPMC10764628

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.