SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
How systematic reviews cause research waste
4 references·16 citing·45 second hop
How systematic reviews cause research waste (2015)How systematic reviews cause research was…Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study (2013)Influence of trial sample siz…Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleve…Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Avoidable waste in the produc…How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study (2003)How important are comprehensi…A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging (2025)A meta-analysis of technology…When is the evidence conclusive? Analysis of systematic reviews for which Cochrane declared that conclusions will not change with further studies (2022)When is the evidence conclusi…The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste (2022)The role of scoping reviews i…Systematic reviews do not (yet) represent the ‘gold standard’ of evidence: A position paper (2022)Systematic reviews do not (ye…Flawed, futile, and fabricated—features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review (2022)Flawed, futile, and fabricate…Systematic Reviews of the Literature Are Not Always Either Useful Or the Best Way To Add To Science (2021)Systematic Reviews of the Lit…Nearly One‐Third of Published Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses Yield Inconclusive Conclusions: A Systematic Review (2021)Nearly One‐Third of Published…How to decide whether a systematic review is stable and not in need of updating: Analysis of Cochrane reviews (2020)How to decide whether a syste…Evidence synthesis relevant to COVID-19: a protocol for multiple systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews (2020)Evidence synthesis relevant t…Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Randomized Controlled Trials: Development and Content Analysis (2020)Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’…Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report (2019)Study-based registers reduce …Accumulation Bias in meta-analysis: the need to consider time in error control (2019)Accumulation Bias in meta-ana…Systematic reviews and research waste (2016)Systematic reviews and resear…Systematic reviews and research waste (2016)Systematic reviews and resear…Cochrane: the unfinished symphony of research synthesis (2016)Cochrane: the unfinished symp…In defence of reviews of small trials: underpinning the generation of evidence to inform practice (2015)In defence of reviews of smal…The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence (2012)Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials (2012)THE EFFECT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE RESTRICTION ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEW-BASED META-ANALYSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES (2012)Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for depression in children and adolescents: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (2015)Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies (2016)Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews (2016)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2020)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology (2016)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis (2007)Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis (2014)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)Evaluation of the comprehensiveness, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID ‐19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production (2021)COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies (2022)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)PRISMA flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal (2021)Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 evidence syntheses was underutilized, but impactful: a methodological study (2022)Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal (2022)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)How to Conduct a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Clinicians (2023)Legal issues and underexplored data protection in medical 3D printing: A scoping review (2023)The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review (2015)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review (2024)Loneliness in Emerging Adulthood: A Scoping Review (2024)The role of scoping reviews in guideline development (2024)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Characteristics of retracted publications related to pain research: a systematic review (2023)Major mistakes or errors in the use of trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses – the METSA systematic review (2024)Narrative bias (“spin”) is common in randomised trials and systematic reviews of cannabinoids for pain (2024)A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies (2000)Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (create). (2006)CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence2,204 cited
  • 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?1,185 cited
  • 2003How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study1,181 cited
  • 2013Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study543 cited

Cited by

  • 2025A meta-analysis of technology use and cognitive aging70 cited
  • 2019Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report62 cited
  • 2020Evidence synthesis relevant to COVID-19: a protocol for multiple systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews51 cited
  • 2022Flawed, futile, and fabricated—features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review49 cited
  • 2022The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste43 cited
  • 2021Systematic Reviews of the Literature Are Not Always Either Useful Or the Best Way To Add To Science35 cited
  • 2016Systematic reviews and research waste32 cited
  • 2022Systematic reviews do not (yet) represent the ‘gold standard’ of evidence: A position paper31 cited
  • 2020Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Randomized Controlled Trials: Development and Content Analysis27 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

  • 2016Systematic reviews and research waste26 cited
  • 2019Accumulation Bias in meta-analysis: the need to consider time in error control22 cited
  • 2020How to decide whether a systematic review is stable and not in need of updating: Analysis of Cochrane reviews18 cited
  • 2021Nearly One‐Third of Published Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses Yield Inconclusive Conclusions: A Systematic Review17 cited
  • 2016Cochrane: the unfinished symphony of research synthesis16 cited
  • 2022When is the evidence conclusive? Analysis of systematic reviews for which Cochrane declared that conclusions will not change with further studies13 cited
  • 2015In defence of reviews of small trials: underpinning the generation of evidence to inform practice13 cited