The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cochrane Methods 2016
Abstract
I propose that we should not allow the dominant systematic review (SR) paradigm to over-shadow other areas of research that seek to conduct systematic reviews, and that complex social interventions could inform the Cochrane approach to reviews. It is worth evaluatingwhether our current thinking about ‘being systematic’ aligns appropriately with the etymological meaning of the concept.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The risk of bias of the included studies in five domains i.e. selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias and reporting bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 software by the Cochrane Collaboration [14].”
From Efficacy and safety of Olezarsen in treating hypertriglyceridemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tirzepatide cardiovascular event risk assessment: A pre-specified meta-analysis
Sattar, N., McGuire, D. K., Pavo, I., Weerakkody, G. J., Nishiyama, H., Wiese, R. J., & Zoungas, S. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01707-4 · Cited by 346
Luchini, C., Veronese, N., Nottegar, A., Shin, J. I., Gentile, G., Granziol, U., Soysal, P., Alexinschi, O., Smith, L., & Solmi, M. (2020) · Pharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1002/pst.2068 · Cited by 249
Self-Compassion, Physical Health, and Health Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis
Phillips, W. J., & Hine, D. W. (2021) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2019.1705872 · Cited by 224
Ho, E. K.-Y., Chen, L., Simic, M., Ashton-James, C. E., Comachio, J., Wang, D. X. M., Hayden, J. A., Ferreira, M. L., & Ferreira, P. H. (2022) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-067718 · Cited by 220
van der Vlist, A. C., Winters, M., Weir, A., Ardern, C. L., Welton, N. J., Caldwell, D. M., Verhaar, J. A. N., & de Vos, R. (2020) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101872 · Cited by 212
Metadata
- Authors
- Hannes, K.
- Corresponding author
- Hannes, Karin
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-10-23
- OpenAlex
- W2562159002
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 1
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Lirias (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, evidence synthesis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
