The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Open accessAbstract
On a shelf in the sunny, open-plan office of Cochrane Australia in Melbourne, there's a large, white ring-binder that, it's fair to say, hasn't been opened in a
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed based on elements of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the GRADE quality assessment and recommendations development process.45,46”
From Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Survivors of Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update (2023) · cites this paper as [46]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline and the methodological framework outlined in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis [16,17,20].”
From Individual-Focused Interventions for Physician Burnout: A Meta-Analysis of Mindfulness, Coaching, and Peer Support (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two independent reviewers assessed the individual quality of the final selected studies using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool [40], with any discrepancies being resolved by consensus.”
From Assessing the Effectiveness of Digital Health Behavior Strategies on Type 2 Diabetes Management: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The risk of bias among all studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of bias tool described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention [25].”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The study was conducted by the guidance of the Cochran Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions [28], and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis checking list (Supplementary Table 1) [29].”
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Individual programs (for example, mindfulness, coaching, and peer support) can improve coping and reduce emotional exhaustion, generally with modest effects”
From Individual-Focused Interventions for Physician Burnout: A Meta-Analysis of Mindfulness, Coaching, and Peer Support (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“system changes (for example, workload redesign, schedule flexibility, and supportive leadership) target structural drivers [16,17,18]”
From Individual-Focused Interventions for Physician Burnout: A Meta-Analysis of Mindfulness, Coaching, and Peer Support (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The Grades Research, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to the meta-analysis to determine the quality of evidence”
From Children's Physical Activity, Academic Performance, and Cognitive Functioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [79]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook22 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)23,24 reporting guidelines.”
From Bright Light Therapy for Nonseasonal Depressive Disorders (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Self-citationCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
(2019) · doi:10.1002/9781119536604 · Cited by 14,828
Self-citationCochrane Collaboration Handbook
Mulrow, C. (1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 403
Cochrane methods - twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods
Chandler, J., & Hopewell, S. (2013) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-76 · Cited by 136
Self-citationWhy do we need Evidence-Based Methods in Cochrane?
McKenzie, J. E., Clarke, M. J., & Chandler, J. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000102 · Cited by 12
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Oxman, 1994, Preparing and maintaining systematic reviews
- Dickersin, 1994, Establishing and maintaining registers of RCTs
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., Schünemann, H. J., Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., El-harakeh, A., Bognanni, A., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31142-9 · Cited by 3,843
Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022) · Campbell Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/cl2.1230 · Cited by 3,486
Self-citationLangford, B. J., So, M., Raybardhan, S., Leung, V., Westwood, D. J., MacFadden, D. R., Soucy, J.-P. R., & Daneman, N. (2020) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.016 · Cited by 1,589
An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19
Howard, J., Huang, A., Li, Z., Tüfekçi, Z., Ždímal, V., van der Westhuizen, H., von Delft, A., Price, A. I., Fridman, L., Tang, L., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2014564118 · Cited by 1,577
Global prevalence of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Petermann‐Rocha, F., Balntzi, V., Gray, S. R., Lara, J., Ho, F. K., Pell, J. P., & Celis‐Morales, C. (2022) · Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12783 · Cited by 1,499
Metadata
- Authors
- Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., Chandler, J., Welch, V. A., Higgins, J. P., & Thomas, J.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-10-03
- Volume
- 10
- Pages
- ED000142-ED000142
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- PMC
- PMC10284251
- OpenAlex
- W2978795816
- Semantic Scholar
- 04201581aa0cd11725250bb0fd5458517bd08e24
- Cited by
- 7,218
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 610 · 2025: 1253 · 2024: 1372 · 2023: 1288 · 2022: 1157 · 2021: 981 · 2020: 521 · 2019: 27
- FWCI
- 137.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0617-10145)
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/24)
- National Eye Institute (UG1EY020522)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- systematic review methodology, Cochrane Collaboration
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Guidelines as Topic
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
