ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026
Methodological Rigor and Integrity of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses From Nursing-Affiliated Institutions in North African Countries: The FALCON-1 Study.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are central to evidence-based practice (EBP). Despite their growing volume in low- and middle-income countries, especially those produced by nursing-affiliated institutions in North Africa (NA), no empirical meta-research has systematically assessed their methodological quality, reporting practices, and research integrity indicators. This study investigated methodological quality, reporting practices, and scientific integrity of SRs and MAs conducted in this context over the past decade. Methods: We conducted a meta-research synthesis of SRs and MAs in nursing sciences published between 2015 and 2025 using the PubMed database. Eligible reviews used explicit SR/MA methods, had a first or last author affiliated with a NA institution, and were identified through structured searches. Methodological and reporting quality were assessed using PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines, complemented by an exploratory 10-point composite quality score. Associations between review characteristics and quality indicators were examined. Results: We included 38 SRs/MAs, of which 15 included quantitative synthesis. Only 50% reported PROSPERO registration, with several registrations being retrospective or inaccurate. While eligibility criteria, database searches, and quality appraisal were commonly reported, dual data extraction and gray-literature searches were less common. Validated appraisal tools were inconsistently applied, and reporting guidelines were sometimes inappropriately used. The composite score indicated overall modest methodological quality; with PROSPERO registration was the only factor associated with higher quality scores ( Conclusions: This study highlights important methodological and integrity-related deficiencies in SRs and MAs in NA. Strengthening methodological expertise in this central field of clinical practice is critical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.