ReviewHealth information and libraries journal2024
Use and application of geographical restrictions in systematic reviews with the aim of including studies about Germany: An update of a methodological review.
Review in Health information and libraries journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translation and validation of a geographic search filter to identify studies about Germany in Embase (Ovid) and MEDLINE(R) ALL (Ovid).Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Use and application of geographical restrictions in systematic reviews with the aim of including studies about Germany: An update of a methodological review.Health information and libraries journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn systematic reviews (SRs), geographical limitations in literature searches can aid in focussing research efforts. A methodological review published in 2016 examined the approaches SR authors use to identify studies about Germany, analysing 36 SRs.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to update the original review.
methodsWe conducted a literature search on PubMed for SRs synthesising evidence from studies about Germany published between 22 January 2016 and 7 June 2022. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. We evaluated the application of search syntax for restricting studies to those about Germany using the peer review of electronic search strategies criteria. The updated findings were reported and summarised alongside those of the original review.
resultsThirty-two additional SRs were newly included (total = 68). Geographic restrictions were applied in 57 SRs, representing 72% in the original review and increasing to 97% in the newly included SRs. Moreover, there was an increased use of truncations and field tags.
conclusionAlthough geographical restriction methods are increasingly utilised, additional tools are necessary to enhance the robustness of search strategies. The development of a dedicated geographical search filter would facilitate the identification of studies about Germany.
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.