Enhancing the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Rebecca Strawbridge, Deepika Sharma, Steve Kisely, Ioana A Cristea, Allan H Young, Kenneth R Kaufman

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Progress in the Synthesis of Evidence in Glaucoma: What We Know and the Gaps that Remain.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
Review

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.

Rebecca StrawbridgeDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College Londonhttps://ror.org/0220mzb33, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2984-1124

Deepika SharmaOld Age Psychiatry, Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Kettering, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6349-0275

Steve KiselySchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4021-2924

Ioana A CristeaDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Allan H YoungDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College Londonhttps://ror.org/0220mzb33, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2291-6952

Kenneth R KaufmanDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College Londonhttps://ror.org/0220mzb33, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7924-4902

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often considered the highest level in evidence hierarchies, and therefore are often drawn upon when considering changes in policy. Despite journals implementing measures aiming to enhance the quality of systematic reviews they publish, the authorship raise concerns about the quality of existing and ongoing systematic reviews, particularly relating to transparency and bias minimisation. Building on the current guidelines, standards and tools, we suggest a 'meta checklist' which aims to maximise methodologically sound, unbiased and reproducible reviews of the best scientific quality while considering feasibility throughout the process.

Indexed as

biasevidenceguidelinemeta-analysismethodological rigourqualitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41186074

DOI10.1192/bjo.2025.10876

PMCPMC12641421

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.