ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2025
Around the EQUATOR With Clin-STAR: Systematic Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness; Challenges and Opportunities.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Around the EQUATOR With Clin-STAR: Systematic Reviews of Intervention Effectiveness; Challenges and Opportunities.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Systematic reviews offer clarity about the effectiveness of interventions based on the best available evidence. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement updated previous guidance to ensure transparency in the reporting of systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness. To adhere to the 27 items of PRISMA 2020, aging-focused researchers must specify the choice of age-based criteria for the review, comprehensively identify studies, select the most important outcomes that will therefore be collected, define the effect measures (e.g., odds ratio), describe investigations of the causes of heterogeneity (e.g., different settings), assess and report the risk of bias including blinding of participants and missing outcome data for results that contribute to each meta-analysis, and discuss the implications of the findings for practice, which will often include some uncertainty. This article provides guidance on overcoming the specific challenges faced by aging-focused researchers in transparently reporting a systematic review.
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.