ReviewCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2025
Certainty of evidence assessment in high-impact medical journals: A meta-epidemiological survey.
Review 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
- Certainty of evidence assessment in high-impact medical journals: A meta-epidemiological survey.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: While certainty of evidence assessment is key to a rigorous and transparent systematic review, it is unknown how - and how frequently - it is assessed in systematic reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and approaches used for certainty of evidence assessment in systematic reviews published in high-impact medicine journals over the past 11 years. Methods: A PubMed search and hand-searching of relevant journal websites identified systematic reviews published between 24 January 2013 and 23 January 2024 in any of the ten highest-impact journals in the General and Internal Medicine category of the Journal Citation Report. Two reviewers independently selected any systematic review related to health outcomes assessing certainty of evidence using any method. We extracted data related to review characteristics, certainty of evidence and risk of bias/methodological quality assessment frameworks, and reported consideration of certainty of evidence domains. Logistic regression examined year of publication to determine whether the prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment changed over time. Results: Of 1,023 included reviews, 346 (33.8%) assessed certainty of evidence. Prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment increased over time (0.16 ± 0.2; Conclusion: Only one in three systematic reviews published in the highest-impact medical journals over the past 11 years assessed certainty of evidence, though prevalence increased over time. The use of specific domains within each certainty of evidence framework was not clearly described in all reviews.
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.