ArticlePloS one2025
Scoping review of evidence synthesis: Concepts, types and methods.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Rehabilitation in patients with primary brain tumors: a scoping review of current guideline recommendations.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Future Adaptations of Psychosocial Program for Indonesian Pregnant Adolescents: A Research Synthesis.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Viral Load Suppression Associated With Undisclosed HIV Status Among Adolescents Aged 10 to 19 Years Living With HIV in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically explore the concepts, types, and methodologies related to literature reviews and evidence synthesis.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review using PubMed, Embase, Biblioteca Virtual da Saúde, grey literature, and websites of key international and national institutions, including the Cochrane Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute, Center for Reviews and Dissemination, Campbell Collaboration, and REBRATS, with searches completed through November 13, 2024. Studies were included if they identified or proposed theories and/or methodologies for evidence synthesis at international or national levels, with eligibility limited to studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese and no restrictions on publication year. Title and abstract screening was conducted independently by ten reviewers working in pairs, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts as needed, and full-text copies of potentially relevant articles were retrieved for further analysis.
resultsThe review included 99 studies employing a variety of evidence synthesis methods. A total of 71 terminologies for types of evidence synthesis were identified and grouped by conceptual and methodological similarities, resulting in 16 categories of evidence synthesis, each with clear differences in concepts and methods.
conclusionsThe lack of standardization in defining and classifying review types challenges the scientific community by hindering study comparisons and appropriate methodology selection. Future research should explore the relationships between different review types and their outcomes, as well as the applicability of new methodologies across various fields.
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.