The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Pandora’s Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy
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?
In the citing paper
“Other innovations include a methodological quality appraisal tool for ScRs that is currently under development [30] and the teasing out of different knowledge synthesis methods (eg, systematic reviews, qualitative evidence syntheses, mixed methods reviews) to inform an evidence synthesis taxonomy [31][32][33][34].”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
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
Skivington, K., Matthews, L., Simpson, S. A., Craig, P., Baird, J., Blazeby, J. M., Boyd, K. A., Craig, N., French, D. P., McIntosh, E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n2061 · Cited by 5,808
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 · Cited by 1,164
Self-citationCochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews
Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007 · Cited by 1,141
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 · Cited by 1,063
Page, M. J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A. C., Catalá-López, F., Li, L., Reid, E. K., Sarkis-Onofre, R., et al. (2016) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 · Cited by 768
Self-citationQualitative Metasynthesis: Reflections on Methodological Orientation and Ideological Agenda
Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G., & Sandelowski, M. (2004) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732304269888 · Cited by 749
Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions
Khalil, H., Peters, M. D., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Munn, Z. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.009 · Cited by 305
Self-citationHoffmann, F., Allers, K., Rombey, T., Helbach, J., Hoffmann, A., Mathes, T., & Pieper, D. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022 · Cited by 278
Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G. J., Mozygemba, K., Refolo, P., Sacchini, D., Tummers, M., et al. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.003 · Cited by 198
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Møller, 2018, Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? we are not sure, Intensive Care Med, 44, 518, 10.1007/s00134-017-5039-y · DOI
- 10.1111/1468-0009.12210 · DOI · Paper page
- Campbell, 2017, Systematic reviews in burns care: poor quality and getting worse, J Burn Care Res, 38, e552, 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000409 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007 · DOI
- Khalil H , Tricco AC . Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem. J Clin Epidemiol 2022;26.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.012 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1479-6988.2005.00026.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1479-6988.2004.00008.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/hir.12276 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/1471-2288-9-59 · DOI
- Fretheim, 2020, Rapid reviews for rapid decision-making during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, Norway, 2020, Euro Surveill, 25, 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.19.2000687 · DOI
- Cuello-Garcia, 2022, Grade guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines, J Clin Epidemiol, 142, 200, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.026 · DOI
- 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00169 · DOI
- 10.1111/jan.12280 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0020-7489(96)00004-1 · DOI
- ed. Booth A , Sutton A , Clowes M . Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Third. London: Sage, 2021.
- Amog, 2022, The web-based "Right Review" tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods, J Clin Epidemiol, 147, 42, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13643-020-01415-5 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review
Tricco, A. C., Robinson, E., Straus, S. E., Colquhoun, H., Godfrey, C. M., Moher, D., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Logan, S., Elsman, E. B. M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112314 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Barker, T. H., Stone, J., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Schünemann, H. J., Clyne, B., Khalil, H., Mustafa, R. A., Godfrey, C., Booth, A., Tricco, A. C., & Pearson, A.
- Venue
- BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2022-10-14
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 148-150
- ISSN
- 2515-446X
- 2515-4478
- PMC
- PMC10313954
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 9
- Language
- en
- Funders
- National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1195676)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Pandora’s Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112065
- The paper
- Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Barker, T. H., Stone, J., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Schünemann, H. J., Clyne, B., Khalil, H., Mustafa, R. A., Godfrey, C., Booth, A., Tricco, A. C., & Pearson, A. (2023). The Pandora’s Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112065
