Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41626905›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2025

Reported methodological quality of medical systematic reviews: Development of an assessment tool (ReMarQ) and meta-research study.

Manuel Marques-Cruz, Rafael José Vieira, Daniel Martinho-Dias, José Pedro Barbosa, António Cardoso-Fernandes, Francisco Franco-Pêgo, Paula Perestrelo, Sara Gil-Mata, Tiago Taveira-Gomes, José Miguel Pêgo and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 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.

  1. 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

13 authors.

Manuel Marques-CruzMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Rafael José VieiraMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Daniel Martinho-DiasMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
José Pedro BarbosaMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
António Cardoso-FernandesMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Francisco Franco-PêgoMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Paula PerestreloMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Sara Gil-MataMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Tiago Taveira-GomesMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
José Miguel PêgoLife and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
João A FonsecaMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Luís Filipe AzevedoMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Bernardo Sousa-PintoMEDCIDS - Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of published systematic reviews has increased over the last years, with a non-negligible proportion displaying methodological concerns. We aimed to develop and evaluate a tool to assess the reported methodological quality of medical systematic reviews. The developed tool (ReMarQ) consists of 26 dichotomous items. We applied an item response theory model to assess the difficulty and discrimination of the items and decision tree models to identify those items more capable of identifying systematic reviews with higher reported methodological quality. ReMarQ was applied to a representative sample of medical systematic reviews (excluding those published in the

Indexed as

meta-analysismethodological qualityreporting qualitysystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID41626905
PMCPMC12621523

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.