The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
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
“This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO, conducted in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions, 53 and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. 54”
From High-velocity power training has similar effects to traditional resistance training for functional performance in older adults: a systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as [53]
In the citing paper
“Moreover as mentioned by other reviews in the field, several of the available studies lack an appropriate comparator or control group which can directly impact the observed effect of the AI-augmented interventions and tools reported in the literature (6, 17–23, 52–54, 57, 58, 67, 72).”
From Examining the role of AI technology in online mental healthcare: opportunities, challenges, and implications, a mixed-methods review (2024) · cites this paper as [53]
In the citing paper
“For this work, a systematic literature review (SLR) method is employed in accordance with Charles Sturt University guidelines.Higgins et al. in the “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention” [1] define a systematic review as one that “seeks to collate evidence that fits prespecified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question.”
From Digital Twin Technology Challenges and Applications: A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as [1]
Citations
Cites
An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd Edition)
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017) · Psychology Teaching Review · doi:10.53841/bpsptr.2017.23.2.95 · Cited by 350
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Boland, A. , Cherry, M.G. & Dickson, R. (Eds.) (2017). Doing a Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide, 2nd edn. London: Sage.
- Booth, A. , Sutton, A. & Papaioannou, D. (Eds.) (2016). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, 2nd edn. London: Sage.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 · Cited by 10,636
Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Whiting, P. F., Wolff, R. F., Deshpande, S., Di Nisio, M., Duffy, S., Hernandez, A. V., Keurentjes, J. C., Lang, S., Misso, K., Ryder, S., et al. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.6358 · Cited by 2,169
Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-119 · Cited by 1,996
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence.
Caldwell, D. M., Ades, A. E., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897 · Cited by 1,600
Self-citationde Souza, R. J., Mente, A., Maroleanu, A., Cozma, A. I., Ha, V., Kishibe, T., Uleryk, E., Budylowski, P., Schünemann, H., Beyene, J., et al. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h3978 · Cited by 1,424
Metadata
- Authors
- Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S., & Ben Van Den, A.
- ORCID
- Green, S.
- Venue
- International Coaching Psychology Review
- Publisher
- British Psychological Society
- Published
- 2020
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-125
- ISSN
- 1750-2764 (ISSN-L)
- 2396-8753
- OpenAlex
- W4320164613
- Cited by
- 5,670
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 166 · 2024: 839 · 2023: 903 · 2022: 875 · 2021: 780 · 2020: 427
- FWCI
- 154.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Coaching Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- 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, intervention research, evidence synthesis, research methodology, coaching psychology
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
