ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2026
Determining the Conclusiveness of Systematic Review Evidence : A Scoping Review of Methodological Approaches.
Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of exercise on physical function and pain in adults with rheumatoid arthritis: an exit meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Pooled it
- Personalized Medicine, Storied Past, Contentious Present, Promising Future.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews can inform research, funding, and guideline decisions. However, it can be challenging to know whether a systematic review has answered a research question conclusively, and it is unclear which methods exist for such assessments. PURPOSE: To map methods related to determining the conclusiveness of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science until 26 September 2025. STUDY SELECTION: Any documents describing methods for determining the conclusiveness of systematic reviews. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data from the primary references of the included methods. Forward citation searches of the primary references were then conducted to identify examples of application of the methods. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-two methods related to assessing the conclusiveness of systematic review results were identified; 45 of these had at least 1 example of their application. The 62 methods were categorized into 3 approaches comprising 23 groups. Mathematical approaches for meta-analyses included 29 methods categorized into 9 groups, such as the fail-safe number, Barrowman's LIMITATIONS: There was no assessment of which methods perform better. Not all methods strictly aimed to determine conclusiveness.
conclusionThis review identified various methods related to assessing the conclusiveness of systematic reviews to enhance their ability to guide research, funding, and clinical decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Western Norway University of Applied Sciences. (Protocol registered in the Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/dthps]).
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.