Research Synthesis Methods

Papers
(The median citation count of Research Synthesis Methods is 2. 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 2021-03-01 to 2025-03-01.)
ArticleCitations
Language inclusion in ecological systematic reviews and maps: Barriers and perspectives198
Comment on a review of methods to assess publication and other reporting biases in meta‐analysis166
Impact of searching clinical trials registers in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical and non‐pharmaceutical interventions: Reanalysis of meta‐analyses109
Adherence to conflicts of interest policy in Cochrane reviews where authors are also editorial board members: A cross‐sectional analysis73
Evaluation of the interim Cochrane rapid review methods guidance—A mixed‐methods study on the understanding of and adherence to the guidance71
Automated data analysis of unstructured grey literature in health research: A mapping review58
Estimating the reference interval from a fixed effects meta‐analysis57
Issue Information51
A framework to characterise the reproducibility of meta‐analysis results with its application to direct oral anticoagulants in the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism40
Accuracy and precision of fixed and random effects in meta‐analyses of randomized control trials for continuous outcomes39
Issue Information33
Combining meta‐analysis with multiple imputation for one‐step, privacy‐protecting estimation of causal treatment effects in multi‐site studies30
Advice for improving the reproducibility of data extraction in meta‐analysis26
Facilitating open science practices for research syntheses: PreregRS guides preregistration25
Rare events meta‐analysis using the Bayesian beta‐binomial model25
Meta‐analyses of partial correlations are biased: Detection and solutions25
A framework for synthesizing intervention evidence from multiple sources into a single certainty of evidence rating: Methodological developments from a US National Academies of S23
A mapping exercise using automated techniques to develop a search strategy to identify systematic review tools22
What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies22
Kenward‐Roger–type corrections for inference methods of network meta‐analysis and meta‐regression18
18
Combining estimators in interlaboratory studies and meta‐analyses17
Meta‐analyzing partial correlation coefficients using Fisher's z transformation17
A search of only four key databases would identify most randomized controlled trials of acupuncture: A meta‐epidemiological study17
Additional considerations and response to ‘graphical representation of overlap for OVErviews (GROOVE tool)’17
The age of abundant scholarly information and its synthesis– A time when ‘just google it’ is no longer enough17
Assessment of key characteristics, methodology, and effect size measures used in meta‐analysis of human‐health‐related animal studies17
Response to Kim et al. “When conducting a systematic review, can one trade search efficiency for potential publication bias?”17
Zero‐ and few‐shot prompting of generative large language models provides weak assessment of risk of bias in clinical trials16
Case study meta‐analysis in the social sciences. Insights on data quality and reliability from a large‐N case survey16
Towards the automatic risk of bias assessment on randomized controlled trials: A comparison of RobotReviewer and humans15
Development of the individual participant data integrity tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data15
How trace plots help interpret meta‐analysis results14
‘Twenty years of network meta‐analysis: Continuing controversies and recent developments’: A health technology assessment perspective13
Accuracy of conversion formula for effect sizes: A Monte Carlo simulation13
Comparing methods for handling missing covariates in meta‐regression12
Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing12
Including non‐English language articles in systematic reviews: A reflection on processes for identifying low‐cost sources of translation support11
Broad versus narrow research questions in evidence synthesis: A parallel to (and plea for) estimands11
Two‐stage or not two‐stage? That is the question for IPD meta‐analysis projects11
Issue Information10
10
Correct standard errors can bias meta‐analysis10
On the double‐robustness and semiparametric efficiency of matching‐adjusted indirect comparisons10
Using clinical trial registries to inform Copas selection model for publication bias in meta‐analysis10
Reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta‐analyses—A scoping review10
Rapid evidence synthesis approach for limits on the search date: How rapid could it be?10
10
MA‐cont:pre/post effect size: An interactive tool for the meta‐analysis of continuous outcomes using R Shiny10
Meta‐analysis and partial correlation coefficients: A matter of weights10
10
Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases' citation indices9
Graphical evaluation of evidence structure within a component network meta‐analysis9
9
Developing prediction models when there are systematically missing predictors in individual patient data meta‐analysis9
Searchsmart.org: Guiding researchers to the best databases and search systems for systematic reviews and beyond9
Issue Information8
Adjusting for misclassification of an exposure in an individual participant data meta‐analysis8
Issue Information8
A REML method for the evidence‐splitting model in network meta‐analysis8
Issue Information8
Network meta analysis to predict the efficacy of an approved treatment in a new indication8
Meta‐analysis of prevalence: I2 statistic and how to deal with heterogeneity7
Response to Hemilä and Chalker's “Pitfalls in choosing data examples for methodological work: Bayesian approaches to a fixed effects meta‐analysis of zinc lozenges for the common cold”7
Reverse‐Bayes methods for evidence assessment and research synthesis7
Bayesian meta‐analysis usingSAS PROC BGLIMM7
PsychOpen CAMA: Publication of community‐augmented meta‐analyses in psychology7
7
A comprehensive review and shiny application on the matching‐adjusted indirect comparison7
Methodological considerations for novel approaches to covariate‐adjusted indirect treatment comparisons7
Bayesian sparse modeling to identify high‐risk subgroups in meta‐analysis of safety data7
Sensitivity analysis for the interactive effects of internal bias and publication bias in meta‐analyses7
Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic review7
6
Bias propagation in network meta‐analysis models6
Data extraction for evidence synthesis using a large language model: A proof‐of‐concept study6
Exploring the relevance of the effect of geographical location when searching for studies using Google Search6
Bayesian meta‐analysis for evaluating treatment effectiveness in biomarker subgroups using trials of mixed patient populations6
Reevaluation of statistically significant meta‐analyses in advanced cancer patients using the Hartung–Knapp method and prediction intervals—A methodological study6
Methods for using Bing's AI‐powered search engine for data extraction for a systematic review6
Synthesizing cross‐design evidence and cross‐format data using network meta‐regression6
Estimating interactions and subgroup‐specific treatment effects in meta‐analysis without aggregation bias: A within‐trial framework6
Applying Bradford Hill to assessing causality in systematic reviews: A transparent approach using process tracing5
Combining endpoint and change data did not affect the summary standardised mean difference in pairwise and network meta‐analyses: An empirical study in depression5
How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey‐based cross‐sectional study of evidence synthesis experts5
Adapting how to use Google Search to identify studies for systematic reviews in view of a recent change to how search results are displayed5
Retrieving Cochrane reviews is sometimes challenging and their reporting is not always optimal5
Meta‐analyses of phase I dose‐finding studies: Application for the development of protein kinase inhibitors in oncology5
Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews: GROOVE tool5
Fast‐and‐frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews5
Issue Information5
What you see depends on where you sit: The effect of geographical location on web‐searching for systematic reviews: A case study5
Exploring methodological approaches used in network meta‐analysis of psychological interventions: A scoping review5
The impact of continuity correction methods in Cochrane reviews with single‐zero trials with rare events: A meta‐epidemiological study5
5
Network meta‐analysis: Looping back5
Bayesian pairwise meta‐analysis of time‐to‐event outcomes in the presence of non‐proportional hazards: A simulation study of flexible parametric, piecewise exponential and fractional polynomial models5
CLUSTER searching approach to inform evidence syntheses: A methodological review4
A critical reflection on computing the sampling variance of the partial correlation coefficient4
Combining meta‐epidemiological study datasets on commercial funding of randomised clinical trials: Database, methods, and descriptive results of the COMFIT study4
Synthesis of evidence from zero‐events studies: A comparison of one‐stage framework methods4
Methods for population adjustment with limited access to individual patient data: A review and simulation study4
In‐depth evaluation of machine learning methods for semi‐automating article screening in a systematic review of mechanistic literature4
4
4
Issue Information4
Response to: Briscoe “Exploring the relevance of the effect of geographical location when searching for studies using Google Search”4
Examining how meta‐analytic methods perform in the presence of bias: A simulation study4
Uncertain about uncertainty in matching‐adjusted indirect comparisons? A simulation study to compare methods for variance estimation4
Accounting for time dependency in meta‐analyses of concordance probability estimates4
Sample size calculation for clinical trials analyzed with the meta‐analytic‐predictive approach4
4
Network meta‐interpolation: Effect modification adjustment in network meta‐analysis using subgroup analyses4
Conducting power analysis for meta‐analysis with dependent effect sizes: Common guidelines and an introduction to the POMADE R package4
Cumulative meta‐analysis: What works3
Exact inference for fixed‐effects meta‐analysis of proportions3
How to plan and manage an individual participant data meta‐analysis. An illustrative toolkit3
Meta‐regression methods to characterize evidence strength using meaningful‐effect percentages conditional on study characteristics3
Machine learning for identifying relevant publications in updates of systematic reviews of diagnostic test studies3
Effect estimates can be accurately calculated with data digitally extracted from interrupted time series graphs3
P‐hacking in meta‐analyses: A formalization and new meta‐analytic methods3
Consensus on the definition and assessment of external validity of randomized controlled trials: A Delphi study3
Regarding approaches to simulating random‐effects3
The consequences of neglected confounding and interactions in mixed‐effects meta‐regression: An illustrative example3
3
Retrospective median power, false positive meta‐analysis and large‐scale replication3
Methodological guidance for rapid reviews in healthcare: A scoping review3
The confounder matrix: A tool to assess confounding bias in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology3
Issue Information3
Location‐scale models for meta‐analysis3
A real‐world evaluation of the implementation of NLP technology in abstract screening of a systematic review3
Why do researchers co‐author evidence syntheses with librarians? A mixed‐methods study3
Graphical tools for visualizing the results of network meta‐analysis of multicomponent interventions3
Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: Evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor2
Response to: ‘Additional considerations and response to Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews (GROOVE tool)”2
Robust variance estimation in small meta‐analysis with the standardized mean difference2
2
Cluster wild bootstrapping to handle dependent effect sizes in meta‐analysis with a small number of studies2
Investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of study effect estimates in meta‐analyses of nutrition research2
Searching for medical devices – Practical guidance2
Combining randomized and non‐randomized data to predict heterogeneous effects of competing treatments2
Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta‐analyse results from interrupted time series studies: A simulation study2
Lessons learnt: Undertaking rapid reviews on public health and social measures during a global pandemic2
On ratio measures of heterogeneity for meta‐analyses2
Reply to “Comment on a review of methods to assess publication and other reporting biases in meta‐analysis”2
Meta‐analytic structural equation modeling made easy: A tutorial and web application for one‐stageMASEM2
Data sharing policies across health research globally: Cross‐sectional meta‐research study2
Causal assessment in evidence synthesis: A methodological review of reviews2
2
Issue Information2
A Q statistic with constant weights for assessing heterogeneity in meta‐analysis2
Issue Information2
Subsequent full publication of qualitative studies presented at United Kingdom Royal College of Nursing Research Conference 2015 and 2016: A follow‐up study2
Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision‐making: To what extent could the evidence be reliable?2
Issue Information2
A comparison of two models for detecting inconsistency in network meta‐analysis2
Calculating the power of a planned individual participant data meta‐analysis to examine prognostic factor effects for a binary outcome2
Estimation of heterogeneity variance based on a generalized Q statistic in meta‐analysis of log‐odds‐ratio2
Issue Information2
Enhancing recall in automated record screening: A resampling algorithm2
0.061777830123901