ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2024
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods.
Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Assessment of Selective Reporting Biases in Studies Included in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Evidence Synthesis: An Investigation of Methods Employed in Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, and Environmental Evidence Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Information Practice as Dialogue: The Case for Collaboration in Evidence Searching and Finding for More Complex Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Protocol: Food Environment, Food Choice, Diets, and Nutrition Outcomes of Pastoralists in Africa: Scoping Review Protocol.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Article
- New search guidance for Campbell systematic reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Searches should aim to be comprehensive and reporting of search methods should be transparent and reproducible. Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews strive to adhere to the best methodological guidance available for this type of searching. The current work aims to provide an assessment of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Our objectives were to examine how searches are currently conducted in Campbell systematic reviews, how search strategies, search methods and search reporting adhere to the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and PRISMA standards, and identify emerging or novel methods used in searching in Campbell systematic reviews. We also investigated the role of information specialists in Campbell systematic reviews. We handsearched the
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.