ArticleResearch synthesis methods2026
Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 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.
- Agreement between ChatGPT and human-derived multilevel meta-analyses: a reproducibility study across clinical evidence syntheses.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Pooled it
- Open Science Practices in Systematic Reviews From 2014 to 2024: A Cohort Study of 300 Systematic Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Systematic reviews are often characterized as being inherently replicable, but several studies have challenged this claim. The objective of the study was to investigate the variation in results following independent replication of literature searches and meta-analyses of systematic reviews. We included 10 systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions published in November 2020. Two information specialists repeated the original database search strategies. Two experienced review authors screened full-text articles, extracted data, and calculated the results for the first reported meta-analysis. All replicators were initially blinded to the results of the original review. A meta-analysis was considered not 'fully replicable' if the original and replicated summary estimate or confidence interval width differed by more than 10%, and meaningfully different if there was a difference in the direction or statistical significance. The difference between the number of records retrieved by the original reviewers and the information specialists exceeded 10% in 25/43 (58%) searches for the first replicator and 21/43 (49%) searches for the second. Eight meta-analyses (80%, 95% CI: 49-96) were initially classified as not fully replicable. After screening and data discrepancies were addressed, the number of meta-analyses classified as not fully replicable decreased to five (50%, 95% CI: 24-76). Differences were classified as meaningful in one blinded replication (10%, 95% CI: 1-40) and none of the unblinded replications (0%, 95% CI: 0-28). The results of systematic review processes were not always consistent when their reported methods were repeated. However, these inconsistencies seldom affected summary estimates from meta-analyses in a meaningful way.
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.