Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis

·2007·Choosing Methods in Mental Health Research

Abstract

Systematic reviews form a potential method for overcoming the barriers faced by clinicians when trying to access and interpret evidence to inform their practice. This fourth article in the Evidence-Based Medicine and Healthcare series of the Singapore Medical Journal introduces readers to systematic reviews, outlining why they are important, describing their methods and providing readers with the skills to recognise and understand a reliable review.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9780203966006-14

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Venue
Choosing Methods in Mental Health Research
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2007-01-24
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
115-128
OpenAlex
W203975472
Cited by
293
References
1
FWCI
30.47
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9780203966006-14
The paper
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. (2007). Choosing Methods in Mental Health Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203966006-14

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.