ArticleHRB open research2025
Experiences of novice student team members in evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a study within a review.
Article in HRB open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence synthesis plays a vital role in healthcare research, informing clinical practice and policy. Increasingly, students are involved in reviews, yet their experiences, including the barriers and facilitators for participation, remain underexplored. This study aims to examine the barriers and opportunities encountered by novice student team members in evidence synthesis. Methods: This Study Within A Review (SWAR) will adopt a mixed-methods approach. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in health-related disciplines engaged in or having just completed their first evidence synthesis at the University of Limerick (Ireland) will be recruited through academic networks and word of mouth. Data will be collected primarily via focus groups, in addition to a short online survey. Thematic analysis will be employed to analyse qualitative data, while descriptive statistics will be used for survey responses. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected concurrently and narratively integrated at the point of analysis using a weaving approach. Results: This study aims to describe the experiences of students involved in evidence synthesis, identifying barriers and facilitators related to their participation. Findings will inform recommendations for improving evidence synthesis training, mentorship, and student engagement strategies. Conclusion: Understanding student experiences in evidence synthesis may inform the development of targeted training and support mechanisms. The findings will provide valuable insights for academic institutions and research teams seeking to optimise student involvement in evidence synthesis.
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.