The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 24 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2nd edition
Open accessAbstract
Aims: Decision makers in public health practice and policy rely on access to trustworthy, relevant, synthesized evidence. The second edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (‘the Handbook’) reflects a major revision in guidance for authors of systematic reviews, incorporating a decade of methodological development and a number of significant changes to previous recommendations. This paper aims to highlight new guidance that addresses a number of key methodological challenges for authors of systematic reviews in public health. Results: The revised Handbook includes guidance on framing public health research questions for synthesis, considering equity, intervention complexity, risk of bias assessment and synthesis methods other than meta-analysis. Reviews of public health interventions frequently encounter the types of methodological complexity addressed in this new guidance. Conclusion: We hope that readers will find that the Cochrane Handbook includes detailed and thoughtful guidance on both conceptualizing and executing systematic reviews relevant to public health questions. Considering the available methods guidance will, we hope, provide support for authors of public health reviews to tackle the challenges they encounter, strengthen their analysis and provide useful answers to the important questions asked by stakeholders and users of public health evidence.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper is a narrative overview of new and revised methodological guidance in the second edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, aimed at authors of public health systematic reviews. It highlights Handbook guidance on framing review questions, equity, intervention complexity, risk of bias across diverse study designs, and synthesis methods other than meta-analysis.
Key findings
- The second edition of the Handbook represents a major revision incorporating a decade of methodological development, with new standalone guidance on equity (Chapter 16) and, for the first time, alternative statistical synthesis methods (Chapter 12).
- Reviews of public health interventions frequently encounter the methodological complexity addressed by this guidance, including interventions that vary in theoretical approach, components and implementation, and populations that differ in important ways.
- Around a third to half of all systematic reviews do not use meta-analysis at all, and more do not use meta-analysis for all outcomes (citing refs 23–24).
- Alternative synthesis methods presented in Chapter 12 include summary statistics describing the range of effect estimates, vote counting based on direction of effect, and combining P values, with companion visual displays such as box plots, harvest plots and albatross plots; these yield results "more limited for decision making in comparison to meta-analysis."
Methods
- Design: a narrative guidance/commentary paper highlighting selected areas of updated Cochrane guidance of particular relevance to public health reviews; it is not itself a systematic review.
- Data: no new data were generated or analysed (per the paper's data availability statement); illustrative examples are drawn from existing reviews (e.g. a school-based physical activity review and a rotavirus vaccine review).
- Content covers Handbook chapters on scope and eligibility (Chapters 2–3), equity (Chapter 16), intervention complexity (Chapter 17), bias (Chapters 7, 13), risk-of-bias tools RoB 2 (Chapter 8) and ROBINS-I (Chapter 25), and alternative synthesis (Chapter 12), plus PRISMA 2020 and SWiM reporting guidelines.
Limitations
- The paper states no formal limitations section; it is explicitly a selective highlight of "some areas" of updated guidance rather than a comprehensive account.
- Evident from the text: as a narrative overview without new data or empirical evaluation, it does not assess the uptake, impact or effectiveness of the guidance it describes, and its recommendations rest on the Handbook's methodological development rather than on primary research conducted here.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Not checked yet · 2 Own interpretation · 1 No basis given
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
- It may state two separate claims as one. 11
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reviews of public health interventions frequently encounter the types of methodological complexity addressed in this new guidance.”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: It is common for reviews in public health to consider interventions that vary in theoretical approach, components and implementation among the included studies.
- Rests on an assumption: It is well known that public health interventions are often comprised of multiple components (what may be considered ‘complicated’ interventions).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additional complexity in interventions may also arise from interactions, between components, between interventions and participants, or with the context in which the intervention occurs.”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Intervention complexity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: It is well known that public health interventions are often comprised of multiple components (what may be considered ‘complicated’ interventions).
In the paper
“Addressed for the first time in a standalone chapter, Chapter 16 of the Handbook presents strategies to consider and incorporate equity throughout the systematic review process.13”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Equity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Welch
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Recent examples of collaboration during the COVID-19 crisis, such as that between Cochrane, WHO and other policy agencies, highlight the potential impact of well-conducted systematic reviews that meet the needs of policy partners.4”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Cochrane, 2021
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Chapter 7 of the updated Handbook outlines the theoretical underpinnings of bias, using evidence-based methods to identify risk factors associated with bias in results and discussing the role of conflict of interest.17”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Risk of bias in diverse study designs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Boutron, 2019
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The revised Handbook includes guidance on framing public health research questions for synthesis, considering equity, intervention complexity, risk of bias assessment and synthesis methods other than meta-analysis.”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Abstract > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Higgins, 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Logic models and conceptual frameworks may help to think through the important concepts within the review.7”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Framing the review objectives and structuring the synthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Thomas, 2019
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The second edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (‘the Handbook’) reflects a major revision in guidance for authors of systematic reviews, incorporating a decade of methodological development and a number of significant changes to previous recommendations.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“Updated at the end of 2019, the second edition of the Handbook6 represents a major revision of methodological guidance for authors of systematic reviews, reflecting a decade of methodological development and including a number of significant changes to previous recommendations.”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Abstract > Aims
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Higgins, 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although not every variation can be predicted in advance, the fact that variation will be found is predictable.”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Framing the review objectives and structuring the synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: It is common for reviews in public health to consider interventions that vary in theoretical approach, components and implementation among the included studies.
In the paper
“Undertaking a review with a systems perspective takes the consideration of complexity even further, considering an intervention as an event within a broader, adaptive system.15”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Intervention complexity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Thomas, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Systematic reviews are widely published on public health topics and routinely incorporated into guidelines.1–3”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] World Health Organization, 2018
- Not checked yetcites [2] NICE, 2020
- Not checked yetcites [3] National Health and Medical Research Council, 2021
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (‘the Handbook’) incorporates practical guidance on conducting a systematic review from idea to publication and has been internationally recognized as a gold standard resource since its first print publication in 2008.5”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Higgins, 2008 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Chapter 25 details the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I), which is designed to be applied to a wide range of study designs, including follow-up (cohort) studies, and controlled or uncontrolled before–after studies (including interrupted time series).20”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Risk of bias in diverse study designs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Sterne, 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Guidance in the updated Handbook suggests that authors then specify how these groups will be used in specific syntheses or comparisons within the review, in enough detail that the selection of studies for inclusion in a group or synthesis could be replicated.8”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Framing the review objectives and structuring the synthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] McKenzie, 2019
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For the first time, Chapter 12 of the Handbook presents a number of alternative statistical synthesis methods for this scenario, including the use of summary statistics to describe the observed range of intervention effect estimates, vote counting based on the direction of effect, or combining P values.”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Synthesis methods other than meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] McKenzie, 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Reasons why meta-analysis may not be possible are varied, but one reason may be when the included primary studies do not provide the necessary data required for a meta-analysis.
In the paper
“Companion visual displays for these synthesis methods are also described, including box plots, harvest plots and albatross plots.”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Synthesis methods other than meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] McKenzie, 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Both tools provide structured signalling questions to assist authors in thinking through each aspect to be considered as part of the assessment process.”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Risk of bias in diverse study designs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Higgins, 2019 source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Sterne, 2019
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Chapter 17 of the Handbook outlines in further detail how authors of systematic reviews can think through what kinds of complexity might apply to their review at the planning stages, and how they might address it in the most useful way.15”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Intervention complexity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Thomas, 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Chapters 2 and 3 of the Handbook provide practical guidance on a structured approach for thinking through the scope and eligibility for the review as well as possible groupings of population, intervention, outcomes and study designs.7,8”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Framing the review objectives and structuring the synthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Thomas, 2019
- Not checked yetcites [8] McKenzie, 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Chapter 8 details version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), which incorporates considerably updated thinking about factors important to bias, including updated guidance on cluster randomized trials, such as those where schools, families or communities are randomized to receive different interventions.19”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Risk of bias in diverse study designs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Higgins, 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Chapter 13 presents guidance on the risks of bias due to missing results (such as unpublished studies or unreported outcomes).18”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Risk of bias in diverse study designs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Page, 2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Around a third to half of all systematic reviews do not use meta-analysis at all,23,24 and more do not use meta-analysis for all outcomes.”
§ Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition > Synthesis methods other than meta-analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Campbell, 2019, Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: a methodological assessment of systematic reviews, J Clin Epidemiol source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Page, 2016, Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study, PLoS Med source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
It is common for reviews in public health to consider interventions that vary in theoretical approach, components and implementation among the included studies.
“It is common for reviews in public health to consider interventions that vary in theoretical approach, components and implementation among the included studies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Planning for complexity can minimize bias arising from post hoc selection while improving clarity for readers.
“Planning for complexity can minimize bias arising from post hoc selection while improving clarity for readers.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Presenting a clear definition of each group and a rationale for the groups chosen enables transparency and replicability of the decisions to group studies in particular ways and enhances understanding for readers and end users of the review’s findings.
“Presenting a clear definition of each group and a rationale for the groups chosen enables transparency and replicability of the decisions to group studies in particular ways and enhances understanding for readers and end users of the review’s findings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Considering equity explicitly in systematic reviews from question formulation to interpretation adds value to the review’s findings, enabling end users to understand whether and how the findings of the review apply to different populations and settings, and ensuring that high-level, aggregated results do not obscure important differences in effects.
“Considering equity explicitly in systematic reviews from question formulation to interpretation adds value to the review’s findings, enabling end users to understand whether and how the findings of the review apply to different populations and settings, and ensuring that high-level, aggregated results do not obscure important differences in effects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is well known that public health interventions are often comprised of multiple components (what may be considered ‘complicated’ interventions).
“It is well known that public health interventions are often comprised of multiple components (what may be considered ‘complicated’ interventions).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Exhaustively listing intervention components may complicate analysis without adding meaningful understanding to the review’s findings.
“Exhaustively listing intervention components may complicate analysis without adding meaningful understanding to the review’s findings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It may be that the most useful review would not aim to estimate a universal effect, but to explore why and how an intervention may have been successful in specific cases.
“It may be that the most useful review would not aim to estimate a universal effect, but to explore why and how an intervention may have been successful in specific cases.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Although many systematic reviews of public health interventions include randomized trials, there are others that cannot, where randomized trials may be unethical, infeasible, unaffordable or simply do not exist.
“Although many systematic reviews of public health interventions include randomized trials, there are others that cannot, where randomized trials may be unethical, infeasible, unaffordable or simply do not exist.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Reasons why meta-analysis may not be possible are varied, but one reason may be when the included primary studies do not provide the necessary data required for a meta-analysis.
“Reasons why meta-analysis may not be possible are varied, but one reason may be when the included primary studies do not provide the necessary data required for a meta-analysis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In some cases, synthesis may be inappropriate, for example where the included studies are at a high risk of bias or there are concerns about missing evidence.
“In some cases, synthesis may be inappropriate, for example where the included studies are at a high risk of bias or there are concerns about missing evidence.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Although these alternative synthesis methods yield results that are more limited for decision making in comparison to meta-analysis, they provide additional options for review authors when the required data for meta-analysis are not available.
“Although these alternative synthesis methods yield results that are more limited for decision making in comparison to meta-analysis, they provide additional options for review authors when the required data for meta-analysis are not available.”
The paper relies on this without support.
These methods may enable authors to make the most of the available data and provide a structured approach where authors may have felt limited to text-based descriptions of the findings of individual studies, which can become rapidly unwieldy where large numbers of studies or complex interventions are involved.
“These methods may enable authors to make the most of the available data and provide a structured approach where authors may have felt limited to text-based descriptions of the findings of individual studies, which can become rapidly unwieldy where large numbers of studies or complex interventions are involved.”
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 check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“According to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines (Cumpston et al. 2022), a minimum of ten studies is required to execute a moderator analysis”
From Examining Working Memory Training for Healthy Adults—A Second-Order Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Cumpston et al. 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
Self-citationCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
(2019) · doi:10.1002/9781119536604 · Cited by 14,828
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S., & Ben Van Den, A. (2020) · International Coaching Psychology Review · doi:10.53841/bpsicpr.2020.15.2.123 · Cited by 5,670
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583 · Cited by 5,148
Self-citationSynthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline
Campbell, M., McKenzie, J. E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S. V., Brennan, S. E., Ellis, S., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Ryan, R., Shepperd, S., Thomas, J., et al. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l6890 · Cited by 4,628
Self-citationThe Concepts and Principles of Equity and Health
Whitehead, M. (1992) · International Journal of Health Services · doi:10.2190/986l-lhq6-2vte-yrrn · Cited by 2,284
O'Neill, J., Tabish, H., Welch, V., Petticrew, M., Pottie, K., Clarke, M., Evans, T., Pardo Pardo, J., Waters, E., White, H., et al. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.005 · Cited by 1,657
Self-citationDobbins, M., Husson, H., DeCorby, K., & LaRocca, R. L. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007651.pub2 · Cited by 1,358
What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews
Lorenc, T., Petticrew, M., Welch, V., & Tugwell, P. (2013) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech-2012-201257 · Cited by 927
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- World Health Organization, 2018, WHO Handbook for Guideline Development
- NICE, 2020, Developing NICE Guidelines: The Manual
- National Health and Medical Research Council, 2021, Guidelines for Guidelines Manual
- Cochrane, 2021, Cochrane COVID reviews
- McKenzie, 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
- Welch, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
- Thomas, 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
- Boutron, 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
- Page, 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
- Higgins, 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 10.1002/9781119536604 · DOI · Paper page
- Sterne, 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
- McKenzie, 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 436
Wu, F., Yuan, Y., Hou, Y., & Ye, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2026.1749651 · Cited by 1
Li, W., Attiq‐Ur‐Rehman, Ge, M., Shen, L., Hu, F.-H., Jia, Y., Shi, H.-Y., & Chen, H. (2026) · International Journal of Social Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/00207640261427405 · Cited by 1
Zhang, S., Wan, C., Ruan, L., Liu, X., Cen, J., Wang, T., & Duan, X. (2026) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.70452 · Cited by 1
Carlesso, C. R., VonVille, H. M., Sions, J. M., Sundaram, M., Johnson, B. S., Barbosa, R. M., Terhorst, L. A., Patterson, C. G., Sprague, A. L., Enrico, V. T., et al. (2026) · JOSPT Methods · doi:10.2519/josptmethods.2026.0026 · Cited by 1
Raine, A., & Saven, H. Q. (2026) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.70153 · Cited by 1
Hao, M., Wang, Y., Zhang, D., Huang, Y., Tang, H., Han, B., 钟雪梅, Li, H., & Liu, T. (2026) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.apjon.2026.100954 · Cited by 1
Liu, R., Cui, J., Liu, Z., Liu, Z., Zhang, H., Zhao, J., & Shen, G. (2026) · Archives of Dermatological Research · doi:10.1007/s00403-026-04599-3 · Cited by 1
Yue, W., Xu, J., & Ma, X. (2026) · Geriatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2026.104094 · Cited by 1
Phytochemical-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements as Antimicrobial Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review
Ezzat, D., Mohamed, M., Elwakeel, E., et al. (2026) · Biomedical Materials & Devices · doi:10.1007/s44174-026-00718-w · Cited by 1
Sun, X., Wu, Y., Shi, C., et al. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2026.130199 · Cited by 1
Wen, Y., Han, J., Gao, J., Lou, J., & Xiang, Z. (2026) · Pediatric Anesthesia · doi:10.1002/pan.70239 · Cited by 1
Barroso, D. C., Portilho, N. D. P., Garbacka, A., Godoi, D. C., Ellwanger, M. P., Mendes, T. P., Ribeiro, V. E. A., Soares, V. G., Hespanhol, L. C., Barros, M. L. S., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1007/s44470-026-00125-4 · Cited by 3
Total artificial heart for bridge to cardiac transplantation: first patient at home in Turkey
Küçükaksu, D. S. (2013) · Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery · doi:10.5606/tgkdc.dergisi.2013.8155 · Cited by 1
Куценко, И. И., Олегович, Б. И., Tomina, O. V., Gorring, H. I., Bulgakova, V. P., & Borovikova, O. I. (2022) · Кубанский научный медицинский вестник · doi:10.25207/1608-6228-2022-29-3-103-120 · Cited by 1
Kandeel, M. K., Morsy, M. A., El‐Lateef, H. M. A., et al. (2023) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr11020398 · Cited by 1
Hu, Y., Chen, P., & Xiang, F. (2023) · Journal of Oncology · doi:10.1155/2023/8740221 · Cited by 1
Gao, X., & Li, F. (2023) · Journal of Herbal Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.hermed.2023.100674 · Cited by 1
Reddy, S. S. P., Francis, D. L., Harish, R., Raja, K., Krishnan, S. A., Chopra, S. S., Manohar, B., Narayana, R., & Kesavalu, L. N. (2024) · Medical Journal Armed Forces India · doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2024.04.010 · Cited by 1
Sun, C., Gao, H., Ma, Q., et al. (2024) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000039528 · Cited by 1
Kolanis, S., Kotanidou, E. P., Tsinopoulou, V. R., et al. (2025) · Children · doi:10.3390/children12010108 · Cited by 1
Xing, Y.-M., Huang, W., Ma, S., et al. (2025) · Thrombosis Research · doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2025.109381 · Cited by 1
Kennedy, S. K. F., Sadeghi, S., Dehkordi, S. R., Lee, S. F., Kirk, D., Cheung, Y. T., Haywood, D., Grech, L., Ramsey, I., Guedes, H., et al. (2025) · JCO Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/op-25-00081 · Cited by 1
Chen, W., Li, W., Yang, T., & Huang, X. (2025) · Medicine Case Reports and Study Protocols · doi:10.1097/md9.0000000000000370 · Cited by 1
Abdallfatah, A., Aldemerdash, M. A., Hageen, A. W., Daoud, S., Elbaklish, M., Morsy, M. H., Abou-Shanab, A. R. A., Mohamed, I., & Abosheaishaa, H. M. (2025) · Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings · doi:10.1080/08998280.2025.2566598 · Cited by 1
Sun, Q., Yin, H., Guan, L., & Cui, L. (2025) · Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · doi:10.1002/ksa.70134 · Cited by 1
He, W., Xue, C., Zheng, J., et al. (2022) · Clinical Cardiology · doi:10.1002/clc.23907 · Cited by 1
“The cutoff value of the Higgins I(2) index was as follows: 0%–40%: might not be important; 30%–60%: may represent moderate heterogeneity*; 50%–90%: may represent substantial heterogeneity*; 75%–100%: considerable heterogeneity.(16) Based on Cochrane Handbook section 10–10–4–1, it clearly states “The choice between a f…”
BackgroundAre the Risk of Generalizability Biases Generalizable? A Meta-Epidemiological StudyPreprint
von Klinggraeff, L., Pfledderer, C. D., Burkart, S. A., Ramey, K. T., Smith, M. T., McLain, A. C., Armstrong, B., Weaver, R. G., Okely, A. D., Lubans, D. R., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3897976/v1 · Cited by 1
Do we really need a randomized trial comparing vaginal delivery vs cesarean delivery?
Saccone, G., & Bifulco, G. (2024) · American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101292
Hemeda, M. S., Ibrahim, M. M.-A., Salim, A. A., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969988/v1
Jiang, C., Li, S., Cai, D., et al. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4844511
Apaer, S., & Yang, W. (2024) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-024-07319-w
Cancer Stage vs Mortality End Points in Randomized Clinical Trials of Cancer Screening
Wang, T., He, D., & Yi, Q. (2024) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2024.16362
Guidelines for the Use of Literature Reviews in Master’s Theses in Public Health
Juárez, S., & Honkaniemi, H. (2024) · Pedagogy in Health Promotion · doi:10.1177/23733799241275612 · Cited by 3
“Their consideration as the “gold standard” stems from the availability of standardized guidelines for appraising and reporting scientific knowledge derived from randomized control trials, such as the Cochrane Handbook (Cumpston et al., 2022).”
Pussegoda, K., Israr, I., Baumeister, A., Corrin, T., Sterian, M., Qamar, M., Samra, A., & Waddell, L. A. (2024) · Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods · doi:10.1002/cesm.70005
Hemeda, M. S., Sayed, H. Y., Mostafa, A. A., Salem, A. A., Reyad, I. A., Mosa, H. H. A., Mohamed, M. H., Ahmed, S. F., Saqr, Y., Bastawisy, A., et al. (2025) · Médecine & Droit · doi:10.1016/j.meddro.2024.10.001 · Cited by 1
Sood, A. K., & Rao, A. K. P. (2025) · Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2025.1371443 · Cited by 3
Current impact in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: The challenge remains
de Mattos, Â. A., Tovo, C. V., Bombassaro, I., & Ferreira, L. F. (2025) · World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology · doi:10.4251/wjgo.v17.i3.102932
Tao, Y., Guo, Z., Miao, L., et al. (2025) · Archives of Osteoporosis · doi:10.1007/s11657-025-01522-7
“Oth-erwise, a random effects model was used [17, 18].”
Revisión sistemática de las recomendaciones GRADE para la estadificación del cáncer de próstata
Sáenz-Rengifo, D., Amaya, A. M. T., Pardo, R., et al. (2025) · Biomédica · doi:10.7705/biomedica.7653
“In the present study, threshold scores of higher than 60% for the rigor of development (domain 3) and 60% in a minimum of two other domains were selected as the quality benchmark, drawing upon threshold scores documented in previous guideline assessments (14-17).”
Fernandes, J. V. A., Ramos, J. V. D. O., Holanda, M. M. D. A., & Júnior, E. A. (2025) · Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences · doi:10.23736/s0390-5616.25.06526-9 · Cited by 2
Anmoto, N., Watanabe, S., Kaneko, T., et al. (2025) · Physiotherapy Research International · doi:10.1002/pri.70091
Effect of Passiflora species in the adjuvant treatment of dyslipidemia: A systematic review
Tequín-Ocampo, E. B., González-Correa, C. H., & Narváez-Solarte, W. V. (2025) · Boletín Científico Centro de Museos Museo de Historia Natural · doi:10.17151/bccm.2025.29.1.2
Prevalence of bullying and violence among adolescents in Arab Gulf countries: a systematic review
Alansari, A. N., Elshanbary, A. A., Youssif, H., & Zaazouee, M. S. (2025) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1007/s10389-025-02576-0 · Cited by 3
Intravenous recombinant human prourokinase for acute ischemic stroke: a network meta-analysis
Fernandes, J. V., Ramos, J. M., & Holanda, M. M. D. A. (2025) · Minerva Medica · doi:10.23736/s0026-4806.25.09737-x
Wen, Y., He, Q., Lan, Q., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1659712
Abdallfatah, A., Beshay, B., Nasseem, M., Tahhan, I. S., Kloub, M., Machchhar, R. R., Daoud, S., Hamed, M., & Abosheaishaa, H. M. (2025) · Perioperative Care and Operating Room Management · doi:10.1016/j.pcorm.2025.100569
Barbosa, A. V., Silva, L. C. A., Rotta, I., & Aguiar, P. M. (2025) · Heart Lung and Circulation · doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2025.04.082
Abdallfatah, A., Daoud, S., Hageen, A. W., Mahdy, D. T., & Abosheaishaa, H. M. (2025) · Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1080/00365521.2025.2576507
“Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the i 2 statistic and cochran’s Q test, as outlined in the cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews i 2 >50% is evidence of heterogeneity [25,26].”
Morphometric Imaging for Age Estimation in Adult Thoracic Vertebrae: A Systematic Review
Razak, N. A., Rahman, M. A., Alias, A., et al. (2025) · Advances in Human Biology · doi:10.4103/aihb.aihb_184_25
Lita, M. D. J. C., Pérez, J. C. A., & Puetate, W. A. G. (2025) · Revista Conectividad · doi:10.37431/conectividad.v6i4.409
Ranjan, R., & Ken‐Dror, G. (2025) · Neurology International · doi:10.3390/neurolint17110183
Azani, F., Khan, M. A., Yasin, A. N., et al. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.97903
Game-based learning efficiency in nursing education in Iran: a systematic review
Kamali, M., & Mousavi, S. K. (2025) · Journal of Medical Education Development · doi:10.61882/edcj.18.3.130
Jiang, X., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., et al. (2025) · Clinical Neuroradiology · doi:10.1007/s00062-025-01596-3
Sarmadi, S., Sanaie, N., & Zare‐Kaseb, A. (2025) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-025-01575-2
Donato, K. O., Falcão, L., da Silva, R. C., et al. (2025) · Child s Nervous System · doi:10.1007/s00381-025-07043-5
“This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and documented in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews [8] of Interventions and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement [9].”
Sarmadi, S., Sanaie, N., & Zare‐Kaseb, A. (2025) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.1080/07853890.2025.2603026
“Cochrane cut-off points were used to interpret these measures: 0%-40% not important; 30%-60% moderate heterogeneity; 50%-90% substantial heterogeneity; 75%-100% considerable heterogeneity [41].”
Zhao, X., Peng, G., Zhong, Y., Liang, H., Ren, Y., & Huang, X. (2025) · Medicine Case Reports and Study Protocols · doi:10.1097/md9.0000000000000391
What Are the Real Challenges of Being a Freelancer?
Halim, N. N., & Putra, O. P. B. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-13003-7_21
Ramos, J. M., Fernandes, J. V. A., Lima, F. M. C. M. D. O., Matias, J. L. T., Beltrão, F. E. D. L., & de Melo, M. D. T. (2026) · Medicina Clínica (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.medcli.2025.107318
Zhao, F., Cai, D., Li, S., et al. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6135983
Cao, X., Zhao, Y., Niu, L., et al. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.91224
Wang, M., Lee, M.-T., Huang, C.-Y., et al. (2026) · European Journal of Integrative Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.eujim.2026.102627
Phumthian, T., Wattanasatja, V., Wipattanakitcharoen, A., et al. (2026) · Kidney Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2026.101284
Guo, J., Zhou, L., Gu, J., Sun, J., Liu, G., & Wei, C. (2026) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2026.1742464
Maximiano, M. L. D. B., Gonçalves, O. R., Falcão, L., et al. (2026) · Neurological Research · doi:10.1080/01616412.2026.2629550
Cai, L., Guo, J., Zhang, R., Gu, J., Zhao, L., Wu, J., Yu, Y., & Chen, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2026.1778052 · Cited by 1
Abdallfatah, A., Hageen, A. W., Albader, D. A., Al-Tamimi, A., Alsalumi, K. A., Alzmmam, A., Abdullah, M., Alreshaid, L., Aldhuwayhi, S., Almarri, N., et al. (2026) · European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1097/meg.0000000000003163 · Cited by 2
Wang, J., Mao, L., Yang, Y., Peng, W., Bao, W., Li, H., Wu, R., Yao, Z., Zhu, X., Wang, D., et al. (2026) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-026-07207-1
Frédéric-Moreau, T., Andratschke, N. H., Antoni, D., et al. (2026) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2026.105287
Sayed, M. S., Abdelraouf, M. R., Kedwany, A. M., et al. (2026) · Heart & Lung · doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2026.102757
Corticosteroids for treating sepsis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Luo, X., Yang, J., Zhang, Z., Sun, H., Gao, M., & Wu, S. (2026) · Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2026.108786
Huang, Q., Peng, A., Cui, Z., Huang, Z., Duan, D., Cao, X., Cui, Y., & Huang, L. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1733799
Sanchez, M. V., Córdova, F., Cisneros, V. M., Tates, M. R., Chauca-Bajaña, L., Farias, D. Q., Araque, M. F., & Ron, B. V. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15072518
Silva, L., de Castro, M. V., Alves, B., Gonçalves, T., Maia, Â., & Pinto, R. J. (2026) · Trauma Violence & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380261429500
Gu, J., Li, Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2026) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.1080/07853890.2026.2652116
Exercise Interventions and Pregnancy-Related Back Pain: Evidence and Gaps From a Systematic Review
Chen, J., Yu, H., Damps, D., & Szumilewicz, A. (2026) · International Journal of Public Health · doi:10.3389/ijph.2026.1608730
de Waal, A. (2026) · International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management · doi:10.1108/ijqrm-01-2026-0038 · Cited by 1
Chen, S., Nie, X., Giovannucci, E. L., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-106815
Eshetu, D. M., Yewodiaw, T. K., Wubaye, A. M., et al. (2026) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/s12887-026-06877-5
“Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and quantified with the I² statistic, which measures the proportion of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance [16].”
InfluentialUnderwater Versus Conventional EMR for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Tumors ≤20 mm
Abdallfatah, A., Daoud, S., Hageen, A. W., Mahdy, D. T., Abosheaishaa, H. M., & Adler, D. G. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1097/mcg.0000000000002377
Liu, X., Wang, H., Wang, S., Wang, R., Zhao, Q., Tian, S., Guo, X., & Cao, H. (2026) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2026.117188
Liu, H., Zeng, Q., Zeng, X., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1839528
Fang, L., Su, Y., Jiang, Y., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-115423
Alqurashi, B. F., Alserihi, A. R., Albariqi, A. A. M., Alenazi, A. A., Alhindi, Y. Z., Alghamdi, R. L., Alotaibi, B. F., Abanmi, S. N., Alhejaili, F. A., & Nahhas, F. H. (2026) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-026-08017-w · Cited by 1
Tao, Y., Wang, M., Shi, H., et al. (2026) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-026-09998-8
“A fixed-effects model was used when P > 0.05 and I 2 50% [ 20, 21 ].”
InfluentialDu, Y., Xu, Z., Wen, T., Meng, X., Zhang, B., Gao, Q., Zhao, X., & Jia, Z. (2026) · Diabetes Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity · doi:10.2147/dmso.s593437
Hordofa, T. A., Ilala, T. T., & Mengistu, K. (2026) · Perioperative Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13741-026-00701-5
“The included studies were assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias for RCTs (Cumpston et al. 2022).”
Risk factors for poor response to autoimmune hepatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mo, W., Li, L., Dong, Y., et al. (2026) · Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/j.clinre.2026.102859
Grace, J. M., & Kassa, M. D. (2026) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-25049-1 · Cited by 1
“These populations demonstrated low adaptive capacity, exacerbated by inadequate policy responses [27].”
Katorkin, S. E., Владимировна, К. А., & Katorkina, E. S. (2026) · Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council · doi:10.21518/ms2026-067
Xu, M., Hassan, R., Mohamad, S., Shahidan, W. N. S., & Song, H. (2026) · International Journal of Dental Hygiene · doi:10.1111/idh.70110
Eshetu, D. M., Yewodiaw, T. K., Shitu, B. F., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2026.108877
Jalota, A., & Sharma, S. (2026) · Indian Journal of Orthopaedics · doi:10.1007/s43465-026-01853-8
Shen, Y., Gao, T., dai, T., et al. (2026) · BMC Neurology · doi:10.1186/s12883-026-05031-z
“Rev‑ Man 5.4 software was employed to generate the quality assessment bar chart and risk of bias summary bar chart [26, 27].”
InfluentialVamanu, A., Maștaleru, A., Schreiner, T. G., Popescu, G., Roceanu, A. M., Cucu, A. I., Patrascu, A., Vulpoi, G.-A., Bilcu, R.-V., Cozma, S. R., et al. (2026) · Medical Sciences · doi:10.3390/medsci14030337 · Cited by 1
Jinsuo, Z., Yufeng, Y., Siwei, S., Jing, S., Tingxuan, Z., Pan, W., & Chen, Y. (2026) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-026-10910-9
Ding, H., Jiang, L., Lee, D., & Chun, B. (2026) · Journal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health Science · doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2026.101153
Metadata
- Authors
- Cumpston, M. S., McKenzie, J. E., Welch, V. A., & Brennan, S. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
- Monash University (AU)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Cumpston, Miranda S
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-03-28
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e588-e592
- ISSN
- 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3842
- 1741-3850
- PMC
- PMC9715291
- OpenAlex
- W4213435918
- Semantic Scholar
- 2d71db8c682696f6d419e48317010613d7d43d5c
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 114 · 2025: 133 · 2024: 147 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 15
- FWCI
- 28.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
- Career Development Fellowship (1143429)
- 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 reviews, public health interventions, research question formulation, equity, intervention complexity, risk of bias assessment, methodological recommendations, evidence synthesis
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Public Health, Public Health Practice, Bias
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
