Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31127978›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2020

Conduct and reporting of citation searching in Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study.

Simon Briscoe, Alison Bethel, Morwenna Rogers

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Antibiotic resistance associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. The experience of financial burden for people with multimorbidity: A systematic review of qualitative research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Pooled it
  14. Mumps disease and vaccination in Africa: A scoping review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Simon BriscoeExeter HS&DR Evidence Synthesis Centre, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6982-4521
Alison BethelEvidence Synthesis Team, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0963-9201
Morwenna RogersEvidence Synthesis Team, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6039-238X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe search for studies for a systematic review should be conducted systematically and reported transparently to facilitate reproduction. This study aimed to report on the conduct and reporting of backward citation searching (ie, checking reference lists) and forward citation searching in a cross section of Cochrane reviews. Citation searching uses the citation network surrounding a source study to identify additional studies.

methodsCochrane reviews were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the wildcard symbol and date limiting to the 3-month period November 2016 to January 2017. Cochrane reviews thus identified were screened for mention of citation searching. Descriptive detail on the conduct and reporting of citation searching was captured in data extraction forms and described and evaluated.

resultsTwo hundred fifteen Cochrane reviews were identified. One hundred seventy-two reviews reported backward citation searching, and 18 reviews reported forward citation searching. Web of Science was the most frequently reported citation index. The studies used for backward citation searching consisted mainly of studies meeting the inclusion criteria. One-third of reviews that reported forward citation searching used selected studies of importance. Reporting of citation searching was compliant with the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) standards, but full transparency requires additional detail that only a minority of reviews reported.

conclusionThe conduct of backward citation searching was more uniform than forward citation searching. This might be due to lack of MECIR guidance for forward citation searching. Reporting was generally compliant with MECIR, but this is not always sufficient to ensure full transparency.

Indexed as

Systematic Reviews as TopicAlgorithmsBibliometricsCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases as TopicDatabases, BibliographicData CollectionInformation Storage and RetrievalPeriodicals as TopicPublicationsReproducibility of ResultsResearchchecking referencescitation searchingCochrane reviewsliterature searching

Identifiers

PMID31127978
PMCPMC7079050

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.