ArticleWorld journal of methodology2025
Primary author contact for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition/North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition guidelines for treatment of functional constipation in children aged 0-18 years.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2026Guideline
- Self-management strategies for menstrual cycle symptoms: a systematic review.BMC women's health · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological treatments for paediatric functional constipation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Pooled it
- Immunomodulators and Advanced Therapies for Induction of Remission in Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic literature review and meta-analysis on therapeutic management of faecal impaction in the paediatric population.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Pooled it
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
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) synthesize and evaluate data, mainly from randomized trials, which then guides the development of clinical recommendations in evidence-based medicine. However, the data and methodological information in the included papers can often be lacking or unclear, and reviewers usually need to contact the authors of included studies for clarifications. Contacting authors is recommended, but it is unclear how often SR teams do it, or what the level of response is.
aimTo investigate how often reviewers undertake contact with the authors of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for clarification on data and risk of bias concerns, to explore the factors that influence whether SR authors contact or do not contact the authors, and the content and level of responses.
methodsWe conducted a systematic electronic database search in MEDLINE using the search string "(systematic review)" AND "(RCT OR randomized OR trial)" for articles published between 1 January 2024 and 19 February 2024, without language restrictions. Screening and data extraction was done independently by two reviewers, and conflicts resolved by a senior author. Contact authors of included SRs were contacted for clarifications.
resultsOf the 329 included SRs, 38% (
conclusionThe majority of SRs published in 2024 did not confirm seeking clarifying or missing information from primary study authors. However, SR teams reported that 50% of contacted primary authors respond. Additional research can clarify this rate of response and establish methods to increase the integration of this core methodological element in SRs.
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.