Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40474913›Full record

ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2023

Systematic reviewers' perspectives on replication of systematic reviews: A survey.

Phi-Yen Nguyen, Joanne E McKenzie, Daniel G Hamilton, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Fiona M Fidler, Neal R Haddaway, Julian P T Higgins, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Phi-Yen NguyenMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0476-3385
Joanne E McKenzieMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Australia.
Daniel G HamiltonMetaMelb Research Group, School of BioSciences University of Melbourne Melbourne Australia.
David MoherClinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Journalology Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Peter TugwellFaculty of Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public Health University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Fiona M FidlerMetaMelb Research Group, School of BioSciences University of Melbourne Melbourne Australia.
Neal R HaddawayLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg Germany.
Julian P T HigginsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School University of Bristol Bristol UK.
Raju KanukulaMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Australia.
Sathya KarunananthanBruyère Research Institute Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Lara J MaxwellFaculty of Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Steve McDonaldMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Australia.
Shinichi NakagawaEvolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.
David NunanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Oxford University Oxford UK.
Vivian A WelchFaculty of Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public Health University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Matthew J PageMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Replication is essential to the scientific method. It is unclear what systematic reviewers think about the replication of systematic reviews (SRs). Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on (a) the definition and importance of SR replication; (b) incentives and barriers to conducting SR replication; and (c) a checklist to guide when to replicate an SR. Methods: We searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on data sharing in SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs ( Results: The response rate was 9% ( Conclusion: Reviewers have various perceptions of what constitutes a replication of SRs. Reviewers see replication as important and valuable but perceive several barriers to conducting replications. Institutional support should be better communicated to reviewers to address these perceptions.

Identifiers

PMID40474913
PMCPMC11795895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.