Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38299136›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Ten Steps to Conduct a Systematic Review.

Ernesto Calderon Martinez, Jose R Flores Valdés, Jaqueline L Castillo, Jennifer V Castillo, Ronald M Blanco Montecino, Julio E Morin Jimenez, David Arriaga Escamilla, Edna Diarte

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 13 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 13 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. Knowledge transmission, culture and the consequences of social disruption in wild elephants.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Ernesto Calderon MartinezDigital Health, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de Mexico, MEX.
Jose R Flores ValdésGeneral Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, MEX.
Jaqueline L CastilloGeneral Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, MEX.
Jennifer V CastilloGeneral Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, MEX.
Ronald M Blanco MontecinoResearch, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
Julio E Morin JimenezGeneral Medicine, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Ciudad de Mexico, MEX.
David Arriaga EscamillaInternal Medicine, Universidad Justo Sierra, Ciudad de Mexico, MEX.
Edna DiarteMedicine, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Culiacan, MEX.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article introduces a concise 10-step guide tailored for researchers engaged in systematic reviews within the field of medicine and health, aligning with the imperative for evidence-based healthcare. The guide underscores the importance of integrating research evidence, clinical proficiency, and patient preferences. It emphasizes the need for precision in formulating research questions, utilizing tools such as PICO(S)(Population Intervention Comparator Outcome), PEO (Population Exposure Outcome), SPICE (setting, perspective, intervention/exposure/interest, comparison, and evaluation), and SPIDER (expectation, client group, location, impact, professionals, service and evaluation), and advocates for the validation of research ideas through preliminary investigations. The guide prioritizes transparency by recommending the documentation and registration of protocols on various platforms. It highlights the significance of a well-organized literature search, encouraging the involvement of experts to ensure a high-quality search strategy. The critical stages of screening titles and abstracts are navigated using different tools, each characterized by its specific advantages. This diverse approach aims to enhance the effectiveness of the systematic review process. In conclusion, this 10-step guide provides a practical framework for the rigorous conduct of systematic reviews in the domain of medicine and health. It addresses the unique challenges inherent in this field, emphasizing the values of transparency, precision, and ongoing efforts to improve primary research practices. The guide aims to contribute to the establishment of a robust evidence base, facilitating informed decision-making in healthcare.

Indexed as

guidemethodologyplatformssystematic reviewtools

Identifiers

PMID38299136
PMCPMC10828625

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.