Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37064677›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Characteristics of the sources, evaluation, and grading of the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews in public health: A methodological study.

Yangqin Xun, Qiangqiang Guo, Mengjuan Ren, Yunlan Liu, Yajia Sun, Shouyuan Wu, Hui Lan, Juanjuan Zhang, Hui Liu, Jianjian Wang and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

16 authors.

Yangqin XunEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qiangqiang GuoSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Mengjuan RenSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yunlan LiuSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yajia SunSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Shouyuan WuSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Hui LanSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Juanjuan ZhangSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Hui LiuSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Jianjian WangWest China School of Public Health and West China Fourth Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Qianling ShiThe First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qi WangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Ping WangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yaolong ChenEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Ruitai ShaoSchool of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Dong Roman XuSMU Institute for Global Health (SIGHT), School of Health Management and Dermatology Hospital, Southern Medical University (SMU), Guangzhou, China.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To systematically explore how the sources of evidence, types of primary studies, and tools used to assess the quality of the primary studies vary across systematic reviews (SRs) in public health. Methods: We conducted a methodological survey of SRs in public health by searching the of literature in selected journals from electronic bibliographic databases. We selected a 10% random sample of the SRs that met the explicit inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently extracted data for analysis. Results: We selected 301 SRs for analysis: 94 (31.2%) of these were pre-registered, and 211 (70.1%) declared to have followed published reporting standard. All SRs searched for evidence in electronic bibliographic databases, and more than half ( Conclusions: SRs should always assess the quality both at the individual study level and the body of evidence for outcomes, which will benefit patients, health care practitioners, and policymakers.

Indexed as

Public HealthResearch DesignBiasCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSystematic Reviews as Topiccertainty of evidenceevidencemethodological surveypublic healthquality assessmentsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID37064677
PMCPMC10097925

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.