ArticleBMJ global health2026
The value of adding 'grey literature' in evidence synthesis for equity-driven global health: a case study from Small Island Developing States.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Grey literature, defined as evidence 'not controlled by commercial publishers', can enhance the comprehensiveness, timeliness and balance of evidence reviews. It may be particularly important in global health research, where funding inequities and under-representation of local expertise in peer-reviewed research articles-often published by commercial publishers for substantial fees-can lead to evidence gaps in systematic reviews. However, searching, reporting and analysing grey literature poses conceptual and methodological challenges. We conducted a systematic scoping review of commercially published and grey literature examining food sources in Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The grey literature component aimed to expand understanding beyond built food environments and food retail and to promote epistemic justice by including traditionally excluded voices, knowledge and experiences. This might be especially important in SIDS, which, due to their small size, remote locations and limited global visibility, might not be well represented in commercially published literature. In this paper, we discuss how grey literature enriched our findings, offering detailed descriptions of diverse food sources, regional data and country comparisons less present in commercially published sources. These documents frequently reflected multisectoral initiatives and were developed through partnerships involving local stakeholders. Beyond highlighting the value of grey literature, we also provide practical guidance for its use in evidence synthesis. This includes key principles for effective searching and screening to support researchers aiming to incorporate grey literature in a systematic and transparent way. Our findings underline the importance of including grey literature to avoid excluding valuable perspectives and perpetuating structural imbalances in global health knowledge.
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.