SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Involving adolescents in evidence syntheses: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Working with a youth mental health apprenticeship scheme to coproduce evidence synthesis: The youth mental health evidence synthesis hub.JCPP advances · 2026Article
- Building the Capacity of Adolescents as Researchers: The Co-Creation of the Health Hive Online Course.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A Youth-Led Evaluation of Adolescent Involvement in a Project on Development of Guidelines for Adolescent Involvement in Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStakeholder involvement in evidence syntheses has the potential to enhance the quality and relevance of reviews. However, adolescents rarely participate in evidence synthesis, mainly because their role and influence in shaping the synthesis process relating to health outcomes are poorly understood. To fully unlock the potential of evidence syntheses for adolescent health, it is crucial to understand how adolescents can contribute at various stages of the review process and how their involvement can influence outcomes.
methodsTo achieve this, we conducted an umbrella review examining adolescent involvement in reviews related to adolescent health research, complemented by a case study that highlights how adolescents were engaged at various stages of this review. We ran a search across 11 databases, screened reference lists and 12 journals, and consulted experts in youth involvement.
resultsWe found only 10 reviews which involved adolescents. In those reviews, adolescents were engaged at almost every stage of the review process, with most involvement centred around interpreting findings or co-authoring the final reports. While adolescent participation was often consultative, there were examples of more collaborative involvement using a wide range of methods, even at technical stages like study selection and data analysis. However, reviews did not report on the impacts or benefits of adolescent involvement in evidence syntheses.
conclusionTo maximise the impact of adolescent involvement, we call for engagement of adolescents throughout the review process and the adoption of frameworks to ensure transparency and consistency in reporting. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021287467.
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.