Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40476007›Full record

ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2023

Development of the InSynQ checklist: A tool for planning and reporting the synthesis questions in systematic reviews of interventions.

Miranda S Cumpston, Joanne E McKenzie, Rebecca Ryan, Ella Flemyng, James Thomas, Sue E Brennan

Abstract read
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Miranda S CumpstonMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6564-8615
Joanne E McKenzieMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Rebecca RyanCentre for Health Communication and Participation La Trobe University Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Ella FlemyngCochrane London UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9845-9076
James ThomasEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute University College London London UK.
Sue E BrennanSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Methods guidance and appraisal tools for systematic reviews require specification of the question and eligibility criteria for the review ("PICO for the review"). Less emphasis has been given to specifying the question and criteria for each synthesis ("PICO for each synthesis"), yet decisions about which studies to include in each synthesis can critically influence the utility and findings of a review. This paper describes the rationale and methods for developing the InSynQ (Intervention Synthesis Questions) tool for planning and reporting synthesis questions in reviews of interventions. The aim is to provide transparency about the basis of the tool and contribute to evidence on methods for developing guidance for research conduct and reporting. Methods: Informed by EQUATOR Network methods, we (1) established a project group; (2) examined reporting of the "PICO for each synthesis" in published reviews; (3) reviewed existing reporting guidance and the Results: Existing reporting guidelines do not distinguish the review and synthesis PICO, with limited coverage of the elements needed to specify the PICO for each synthesis. Using the PRISMA 2020 format, the draft tool contained 10 items with essential and additional reporting elements, explanations, and examples. Revisions arising from consultation meetings (>30 people), included adding an eleventh item on consumer and stakeholder involvement, a figure explaining PICO for each synthesis, and integrating examples into elements/explanations. All respondents to the survey (12 people) said the tool would help them plan or appraise synthesis questions. InSynQ is available at https://InSynQ.info. Conclusion: Transparent reporting of the development process contributes to the evidence base for methods to develop guidance. It may improve uptake of InSynQ, in turn enhancing the clarity of syntheses.

Indexed as

evidence synthesisPICOreportingreporting guidelineresearch questionssynthesis questionssystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40476007
PMCPMC11795942

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.