ArticleBMJ mental health2024
Article in BMJ mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Complementary, alternative and integrative medicine for autism: an umbrella review and online platform.Nature human behaviour · 2025Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of ADHD interventions: umbrella review and platform for shared decision making.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical practices in ADHD management across Europe: findings from the ESCAP research academy survey.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Child and adolescent psychiatry: challenges, solutions, opportunities, and future directions.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026Article
- metaConvert: an automatic suite for estimation of 11 different effect size measures and flexible conversion across them.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become crucial for evidence-based decision-making in recent decades. However, it is common for the results of multiple reviews on the same topic to be inconsistent, and it is widely recognised that the results of the reviews are not always effectively communicated to healthcare professionals and the lay public. This manuscript proposes a strategy to summarise and communicate the findings of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses to wider audiences. The proposed approach couples the findings of umbrella reviews with the creation of open-access online platforms that present the results of these umbrella reviews in an accessible way to various stakeholders. The key potential methodological avenues of this approach are presented, and specific examples from the author's own works and those from other teams are provided. An accompanying website (https://u-reach.org/) has been designed to present this Umbrella-Review, Evaluation, Analysis, and Communication Hub (U-REACH) approach and to overcome the technical challenges associated with this type of project (by sharing the code used to build existing U-REACH projects). The present document is intended to serve as a methodological and technical guide for the creation of large-scale projects designed to synthesise and disseminate scientific information to a broad audience.
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.