Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40906182›Full record

ReviewBiology2025

Methodological Standards for Conducting High-Quality Systematic Reviews.

Alessandro De Cassai, Burhan Dost, Serkan Tulgar, Annalisa Boscolo

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Alessandro De CassaiDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, 35127 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9773-1832
Burhan DostDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ondokuz Mayis University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun 55270, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-4562-1172
Serkan TulgarDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Samsun University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun 55080, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0003-1996-7505
Annalisa BoscoloDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), University of Padua, 35127 Padua, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of evidence-based research, providing comprehensive summaries of existing studies to answer specific research questions. This article offers a detailed guide to conducting high-quality systematic reviews in biology, health and social sciences. It outlines key steps, including developing and registering a protocol, designing comprehensive search strategies, and selecting studies through a screening process. The article emphasizes the importance of accurate data extraction and the use of validated tools to assess the risk of bias across different study designs. Both meta-analysis (quantitative approach) and narrative synthesis (qualitative approach) are discussed in detail. The guide also highlights the use of frameworks, such as GRADE, to assess the certainty of evidence and provides recommendations for clear and transparent reporting in line with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. This paper aims to adapt and translate evidence-based review principles, commonly applied in clinical research, into the context of biological sciences. By highlighting domain-specific methodologies, challenges, and resources, we provide tailored guidance for researchers in ecology, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, and related fields in order to conduct transparent and reproducible evidence syntheses.

Indexed as

evidence synthesisGRADEguidelinemeta-analysisnarrative synthesisPRISMApublication biasrisk of biasstudy selectionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40906182
PMCPMC12383630

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.