ReviewCureus2025
Association of Use of GRADE, Protocol Registration, and Journal Impact Factor With Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in Rehabilitation Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Oral herbal medicine for breast cancer-related symptoms: an evidence map of systematic reviews.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify factors associated with the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals. We conducted a meta-epidemiological study as a secondary analysis of a previous study. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework. We analyzed 219 SRs from rehabilitation journals published since 2020. We assessed reporting quality using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and methodological quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. Multiple linear regression and Spearman's correlation were used to identify factors associated with quality, including Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Multivariate analysis revealed PRISMA 2020 adherence was significantly associated with use of GRADE (β = 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.24-5.42), protocol registration (β = 3.40; 95% CI: 2.32-4.47), and the JIF (2023) (β = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.42-0.95). AMSTAR 2 adherence was also significantly associated with use of GRADE (β = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.88-3.17), protocol registration (β = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.44-2.70), and the JIF (2023) (β = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.14-0.45). Weak positive correlations were observed between the JIF (2023) and both PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 adherence (ρ = 0.27 and ρ = 0.22, respectively; both P < 0.01). It should be noted that these findings reflect associations and do not imply causality. To enhance the quality of SRs in rehabilitation, researchers should prioritize adherence to PRISMA 2020, particularly the use of GRADE and protocol registration, which this study identified as key associated factors.
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.