Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31233957›Full record

SynthesisSocial science & medicine (1982)2019

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses.

Blair T Johnson, Emily A Hennessy

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Social science & medicine (1982), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 24 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 24 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 24 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. Opioid Misuse and Suicide-Related Outcomes Among Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Evaluation of Prevention Programs for Grandparent Caregivers: a Systematic Review.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Systematic review of conservation interventions to promote voluntary behavior change.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023
    Pooled it
  17. A Systematic Review of Research on Non-Maternal Caregivers' Feeding of Children 0-3 Years.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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.

Blair T JohnsonUniversity of Connecticut, USA. Electronic address: blair.t.johnson@uconn.edu.
Emily A HennessyUniversity of Connecticut, USA.

Funding

Columbia University Science of Behavior Change Resource and Coordinating Center renewal -Ontology Administrative SupplementU24AG052175 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI EDMONDSON, DONALD · 2015 to 2024
$14.5M
NIA NIH HHS U24 AG052175
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleThe journal Social Science & Medicine recently adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009) as guidelines for authors to use when disseminating their systematic reviews (SRs). APPROACH: After providing a brief history of evidence synthesis, this article describes why reporting standards are important, summarizes the sequential steps involved in conducting SRs and meta-analyses, and outlines additional methodological issues that researchers should address when conducting and reporting results from their SRs. RESULTS AND

conclusionsSuccessful SRs result when teams of reviewers with appropriate expertise use the highest scientific rigor in all steps of the SR process. Thus, SRs that lack foresight are unlikely to prove successful. We advocate that SR teams consider potential moderators (M) when defining their research problem, along with Time, Outcomes, Population, Intervention, Context, and Study design (i.e., TOPICS + M). We also show that, because the PRISMA reporting standards only partially overlap dimensions of methodological quality, it is possible for SRs to satisfy PRISMA standards yet still have poor methodological quality. As well, we discuss limitations of such standards and instruments in the face of the assumptions of the SR process, including meta-analysis spanning the other SR steps, which are highly synergistic: Study search and selection, coding of study characteristics and effects, analysis, interpretation, reporting, and finally, re-analysis and criticism. When a SR targets an important question with the best possible SR methods, its results can become a definitive statement that guides future research and policy decisions for years to come.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicReview Literature as TopicBiomedical ResearchEditorial PoliciesHumansPublishingResearch DesignEvidence synthesisMeta-analysisMethodological qualityResearch synthesisRisk of biasSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID31233957
PMCPMC8594904

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.