ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2025
Inclusion, characteristics and methodological limitations of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all universities in Sweden.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic Reviews as Part of Doctoral Theses and for the Promotion to Associate Professor: A Descriptive Study of University Policies in Sweden.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Inclusion, characteristics and methodological limitations of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all universities in Sweden.Cochrane evidence synthesis and 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intro: A systematic review (SR) attempts to find, assess and summarize all the empirical evidence to answer a specific research question. We aim to explore to what extent reviews are included in doctoral theses from all universities with a medical faculty in Sweden, and to describe the type, topic and assess the methodological quality of the reviews. Methods: Duplicate assessors independently searched local and national repositories for doctoral theses published in 2021 within all seven medical faculties in Sweden, and categorized identified reviews based on review type, topic, and methodological quality using AMSTAR-2. Results: 5.4% (45/852) of all doctoral theses included a review, and 1.3% (45/3461) of all included studies were reviews. Of these, two thirds (31) were SRs and the rest (14) were broader 'big picture' reviews. The most common topics were interventions (42%) and exposure/etiology (32%), with no reviews of diagnostic tests. The majority of the SRs had very low (71%) or low (19%) quality, and few reached a high (7%) or moderate (3%) quality. The most common issues were limitations with protocols, limited search strategies, and failure to account for risk of bias in drawn conclusions. Conclusions: Few doctoral students included SRs in their theses, and the few SRs included in doctoral theses generally had a low quality. There is no consensus on the appropriate proportion of doctoral thesis including a SR. We argue that conducting a SR within a doctoral thesis can reduce redundant, harmful and unethical research, identify knowledge gaps, and help the doctoral student obtain important skills to conduct and use research.
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.