Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?

By H. Bastian, P. Glasziou, I. Chalmers. PLoS Medicine, 2010

1,097 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Hilda Bastian and colleagues examine the extent to which critical summaries of clinical trials can be used by health professionals and the public.

Subfields: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e43a5f104d45260d3812be291ced8cc069f6351

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts (2013, background): “Conversely, a large proportion of systematic reviews are published by health technology agencies in non-English speaking countries [1], many of which provide only the abstract in English.”
Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews (2015, background): “[75] estimated that every day, 11 new systematic reviews and 75 trials are published and indexed in MEDLINE.”
Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions (2011, neutral): “In recent years however, decision makers who were once overwhelmed by the number of individual studies have become faced by a plethora of reviews [4,5].”
Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College (background): “…these approaches, and the last half century has witnessed a considerable shift and progress in our studies;7 yet much remains to be done for the field of ancient art, specifically sculpture, to be ranked by most archaeologists at the same "objective" level of, say, Greek epigraphy and architecture.”
The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017, background): “For comparison, researchers into the impact of randomised trials would be able to draw on several hundred thousand trials and those investigating the impact of systematic reviews have many tens of thousands of examples of this type of research as their starting point [168].”
MSˆ2: Multi-Document Summarization of Medical Studies (2021, background): “Around 120 RCTs are published per day as of this writing https://ijmarshall.github.io/sote/, up from 75 in 2010 (Bastian et al., 2010). who is studied?”
A Corpus with Multi-Level Annotations of Patients, Interventions and Outcomes to Support Language Processing for Medical Literature (2018, background): “It is thus practically impossible for physicians to know which is the best medical intervention for a given patient group and condition (Borah et al., 2017; Fraser and Dunstan, 2010; Bastian et al., 2010).”
SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (2019, background): “found that they constitute the largest share of all text types in medicine and they concluded that they “remain the staple of medical literature” [1].”
Systematic review automation technologies (2014, background): “This process is prolonged and subject to review, editing, and publication delays [4,7].”
What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018, background): “However, systematic review methodology and the language used to express that methodology, has progressed significantly since their appearance in healthcare in the 1970’s and 80’s [7, 8].”
Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach (2015, positive): “One recent estimate suggests that 11 systematic reviews are published every day.(1) With the increased number of systematic reviews available, a logical and appropriate next step has been the conduct of reviews of existing systematic reviews, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared ”