Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42561129›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026

A Revised Classification Framework for Studies in Systematic Reviews: Prioritizing Outcome Data Availability Over Study Status.

Rafael Leite Pacheco, Rachel Riera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rafael Leite PachecoHealth Technology Assessment Center, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7487-8471
Rachel RieraHealth Technology Assessment Center, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-1871

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe classification of primary studies is a critical methodological step in the conduct of systematic reviews. The current Cochrane approach categorizes studies as 'included', 'excluded', 'ongoing' or 'awaiting classification', primarily based on study eligibility and completion status. However, the concept of an 'ongoing' clinical trial is itself poorly defined across registries and methodological guidelines, introducing a layer of subjectivity that undermines reproducibility.

methodsWe propose a revised classification framework that replaces study status with outcome data availability as the primary classification criterion.

resultsThe proposed framework introduces three changes: (1) splitting the 'included studies' category into 'included studies with analysable outcome data' and 'included studies without analysable outcome data'; (2) eliminating the 'ongoing studies' category, whose function is absorbed by the two proposed categories; and (3) restricting 'awaiting classification' exclusively to studies where eligibility could not be determined.

conclusionThis framework makes more explicit how many eligible studies could not contribute to outcome analysis due to reporting-related problems, thereby increasing transparency and reducing ambiguity in the categorization process. Future empirical studies measuring inter-rater reliability and the operational precision of the proposed categories are needed to validate this proposal.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansReproducibility of Resultsresearch synthesisstudy categorystudy classificationsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID42561129
PMCPMC13446818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.