ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1994
Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care.
Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A meta-evaluation of the quality of reporting and execution in ecological meta-analyses.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?Research synthesis methods · 2014Pooled it
- When and how to update systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- The effectiveness of treatment for depression/depressive symptoms in adults with cancer: a systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2006Pooled it
- A systematic review of the incidence of schizophrenia: the distribution of rates and the influence of sex, urbanicity, migrant status and methodology.BMC medicine · 2004Pooled it
- Chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: four systematic meta-analyses of individual patient data from 37 randomized trials. Advanced Ovarian Cancer Trialists' Group.British journal of cancer · 1998Pooled it
- Contacting authors to retrieve individual patient data: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials · 2016Trial
- From Evidence to Value: Integrating Evidence-Based Medicine, Patient Safety, Quality Improvement, Learning Health Systems, and Value-Based Healthcare.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
- Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Is Differentially Associated with Early and Late Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States Population.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Article
- Article
- Article
- Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Article
- 'The human prerogative': a critical analysis of evidence-based and other paradigms of care in substance abuse treatment.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2010Article
- Time to update and quantitative changes in the results of cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews.PloS one · 2010Article
- Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2009Article
- Reply to "Ten simple rules for getting published".PLoS computational biology · 2007Article
- Application of evidence-based urology in improving quality of care.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India · 2007Article
- Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?BMC medical research methodology · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent growth in the numbers of published systematic reviews reflects growing recognition of their importance for improving knowledge about the effects of health care. In Britain the NHS R&D Programme has established two centres to prepare systematic reviews of existing information, and the Cochrane Collaboration--an international network of individuals and institutions--evolved to produce systematic, periodically updated reviews of randomised controlled trials. The large amount of existing evidence that needs to be considered creates a problem for the reporting of systematic reviews: the need to ensure that methods and results of systematic reviews are adequately described has to be reconciled with the limited space available in printed journals. A possible solution is the use of electronic publications: reviews could be published simultaneously in a short, printed form and in a more detailed electronic form. Electronic publications also have the advantage of the ease with which reviews may be updated as new evidence becomes available or mistakes are identified.
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.