SynthesisPloS one2026
Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in behaviour analysis journals: An umbrella review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential for translating evidence into practice. We conducted an umbrella review to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the field of behaviour analysis up to and including 2023. Eligible studies were identified through targeted searches of seven behaviour analysis journals using APA PsycINFO. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) and Revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR) instruments. Temporal trends were analysed using Bayesian multilevel regression. The protocol was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U38Z4). We identified 64 reviews (16 of which included a meta-analysis), all of which were rated as 'critically low' quality using the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Methodological shortcomings included absent protocol registration, inadequate risk of bias assessment, and failure to assess publication bias. Mean R-AMSTAR adherence was 43.8% (range 11-66%) and increased by 1.08% per year (population-level average marginal effect from the multilevel logistic model (95% CI [0.59, 1.58]), indicating robust methodological improvement over time. Currently, many systematic reviews and meta-analyses in behaviour analysis do not yet meet contemporary standards of methodological rigour. Enhancing the quality, transparency, and consistency of evidence synthesis is vital if systematic reviews are to meaningfully inform practice.
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.