Research Synthesis Methods

Papers
(The H4-Index of Research Synthesis Methods is 24. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2021-11-01 to 2025-11-01.)
ArticleCitations
What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies360
Lord’s Paradox and two network meta-analysis models316
Reported methodological quality of medical systematic reviews: Development of an assessment tool (ReMarQ) and meta-research study170
Facilitating open science practices for research syntheses: PreregRS guides preregistration143
Towards the automatic risk of bias assessment on randomized controlled trials: A comparison of RobotReviewer and humans140
An investigation of the impact of using contrast- and arm-synthesis models for network meta-analysis123
Accuracy of conversion formula for effect sizes: A Monte Carlo simulation116
Meta‐analyses of partial correlations are biased: Detection and solutions92
Advice for improving the reproducibility of data extraction in meta‐analysis78
Assessment of key characteristics, methodology, and effect size measures used in meta‐analysis of human‐health‐related animal studies74
A mapping exercise using automated techniques to develop a search strategy to identify systematic review tools69
50
49
Synthesis of depression outcomes reported on different scales: A comparison of methods for modelling mean differences48
Authors’ reply: Continuity corrections with Mantel–Haenszel estimators in Cochrane reviews36
Network meta analysis to predict the efficacy of an approved treatment in a new indication35
Fast‐and‐frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews34
Exploring graphical approaches to assess the impact of an additional trial on a decision model via updated meta-analysis33
Evaluation of semi-automated record screening methods for systematic reviews of prognosis studies and intervention studies32
Correct standard errors can bias meta‐analysis31
CausalMetaR: An R package for performing causally interpretable meta-analyses30
Capturing causal claims: A fine-tuned text mining model for extracting causal sentences from social science papers27
Estimands and their implications for evidence synthesis for oncology: A simulation study of treatment switching in meta-analysis26
Incorporating the possibility of cure into network meta-analyses: A case study from resected Stage III/IV melanoma26
Exploring the methodological quality and risk of bias in 200 systematic reviews: A comparative study of ROBIS and AMSTAR-2 tools24
A comprehensive systematic review dataset is a rich resource for training and evaluation of AI systems for title and abstract screening24
Retrieving Cochrane reviews is sometimes challenging and their reporting is not always optimal24
0.091922998428345