Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39604580›Full record

ReviewCommunications medicine2024

Appraisal of umbrella reviews on vaccines.

Rosa Katia Bellomo, John P A Ioannidis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Rosa Katia BellomoMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2259-4757
John P A IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. jioannid@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3118-6859

Funding

EC | EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 | H2020 Priority Excellent Science | H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (H2020 Excellent Science - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions) 823995
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Umbrella reviews are systematic reviews of all systematic reviews on a given question and can provide a higher-level view of current available evidence on broad research topics. Given the importance and possible consequences of the insights derived from umbrella reviews, it is fundamental to ensure accurate, comprehensive reporting and methodological rigor in these papers. Here, we present the potential and limitations of these evolving evidence synthesis tools by looking at umbrella reviews published on vaccine research. Vaccines are essential tools in modern medicine for preventing disease and promoting public health. The scientific literature on vaccines grows rapidly as researchers work to improve existing vaccines and develop new ones. More than half a million scientific papers on vaccines have already been published, including several thousands of systematic reviews that aim to appraise and summarize this growing literature. However, as the published systematic reviews are only able to cover a small proportion of the literature it is important to also provide higher-level evidence syntheses. and discuss further improvements that could be made to integrate evidence on vaccines.

Identifiers

PMID39604580
PMCPMC11603068

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.