Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39280938›Full record

ReviewJournal of lifestyle medicine2024

Cutting-Edge Methodological Guidance for Authors in Conducting the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dewan Md Sumsuzzman, Yonghoon Kim, Suhyeon Baek, Yonggeun Hong

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of lifestyle medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

4 authors.

Dewan Md SumsuzzmanDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Healthcare Medical Science & Engineering, Inje University, Gimhae, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4468-1202
Yonghoon KimResearch Center for Aged-Life Redesign (RCAR), Inje University, Gimhae, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8724-745X
Suhyeon BaekResearch Center for Aged-Life Redesign (RCAR), Inje University, Gimhae, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7958-0196
Yonggeun HongDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Healthcare Medical Science & Engineering, Inje University, Gimhae, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1288-0546

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The landscape of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) in biomedicine has expanded exponentially, driven by the growing demand for evidence-based healthcare decision-making. However, the rapid increase of SRMAs has often outpaced the development of rigorous methodological standards, resulting in variability in quality and potentially limiting their effectiveness in informing healthcare practices. This gap highlights the critical need for advanced methodological guidance to enhance the quality and impact of SRMAs. Our contribution aims to provide comprehensive methodological direction for authors to conduct robust SRMAs. By effectively integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence, SRMAs can address complex healthcare questions more thoroughly than traditional reviews. Furthermore, these step-by-step guidelines will help researchers to address the challenges of synthesizing diverse types of evidence, thereby improving the rigor, relevance, and applicability of their findings in healthcare decision-making processes.

Indexed as

GuidelineMeta-analysisMethodsMixed methods synthesisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39280938
PMCPMC11391338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.