Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38226356›Full record

ReviewMethodsX2024

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews: A method for conducting comprehensive analysis.

Stefano Mancin, Marco Sguanci, Desirèe Andreoli, Fanny Soekeland, Giuliano Anastasi, Michela Piredda, Maria Grazia De Marinis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Interventions That Support Breastfeeding for Women With Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of transcultural nursing : official journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and other best practice recommendations for pressure injury risk assessment in the United States.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Stefano MancinDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Marco SguanciDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Research Unit of Nursing Science, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Desirèe AndreoliAzienda Ospedaliera Santa Maria della Misericordia, Perugia, Italy.
Fanny SoekelandUniversity of Applied Sciences, School of Health Professions, Bern, Switzerland.
Giuliano AnastasiDepartment of Trauma, AOU G. Martino University Hospital, Messina, Italy.
Michela PireddaDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Research Unit of Nursing Science, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Maria Grazia De MarinisDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Research Unit of Nursing Science, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A systematic review (SR) is a research method for synthesizing evidence on a specific topic. Among the various types of systematic reviews, there are SRs of guidelines (CPGs) and SRs of SRs. Traditionally, they are limited to just one type of secondary evidence. This paper introduces an innovative SR methodology that combines CPGs and SRs to improve evidence synthesis and overcome the limitations of isolated use. Essential steps that should always precede the actual research process include registering the research protocol, formulating research questions and setting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Using the PRISMA protocol for comprehensive database searches, it's crucial to combine keywords with boolean operators and remove duplicates. The eligibility of studies should be assessed by selecting potentially relevant articles through an initial screening of titles and abstracts, followed by a meticulous analysis of the full-texts. Rigorous evidence evaluation tools, such as AGREE II for CPGs and AMSTAR 2 for SRs, and the double reviewer approach ensure high-quality selections. Additionally, converting summarized results into percentages and applying statistical analyses facilitate interpretation and improve the reliability of rater assessments. A further characteristic of this methodology is its adaptability to the evolution of healthcare research.

Indexed as

Clinical practice guidelinesEvidence-based medicineMeta-analysisMethodologySystematic review of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviewsSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID38226356
PMCPMC10788252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.