ArticlePeerJ2026
Step-by-step guide and checklists for selecting and conducting an evidence synthesis study using a framework for approaches and methods in evidence synthesis (FRAMES).
Article in PeerJ, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Findings from multiple studies are used to develop informed decisions for future research and clinical practices. Evidence synthesis methods, in general, are recommended for synthesizing findings from multiple studies. Among all evidence synthesis methods, a high-quality systematic review is required for answering a specific, focused research question from an abundance of literature. Although the choice of a systematic review among all other evidence syntheses depends on the formulated question related to estimation or hypothesis, and the availability of high-quality original studies, evidence syntheses not adhering to systematic review guidelines are also referred to as systematic reviews in the literature. Moreover, planning, designing, analyzing, and reporting a systematic review and meta-analysis requires multiple steps that are not included in the standard checklist documents, such as preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) or meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE). It is also unclear to investigators how to properly select a type of evidence synthesis method and the steps involved in conducting a meta-analysis. Although multiple documents are available for selecting appropriate evidence synthesis methods, writing a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis, and conducting meta-analyses, there is no single report that consolidates all of these in a comprehensive framework. Given emerging challenges in the quality of published systematic reviews, this report aims to facilitate a framework for approaches and methods in evidence synthesis (FRAMES) to readers in (a) understanding types of evidence synthesis methods with specific focus to a systematic reviews and meta-analyses, (b) explaining the objectives of meta-analysis study, (c) describing the steps and resources in conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, and (d) exemplifying the challenges and their potential solutions in a meta-analysis study. This report provides evidence-based biostatistics checklists for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, and writing steps for a systematic review study. I believe the adoption of this guidance document in research and training for the conduct and writing of an evidence synthesis study can have a far-reaching impact on producing high-quality evidence for research and clinical practices.
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.