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
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
Exploring the methodological quality and risk of bias in 200 systematic reviews: A comparative study of ROBIS and AMSTAR-2 tools24
0.089958906173706