Research Synthesis Methods

Papers
(The H4-Index of Research Synthesis Methods is 23. 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 2021-06-01 to 2025-06-01.)
ArticleCitations
Reported methodological quality of medical systematic reviews: Development of an assessment tool (ReMarQ) and meta-research study283
An investigation of the impact of using contrast- and arm-synthesis models for network meta-analysis241
Facilitating open science practices for research syntheses: PreregRS guides preregistration147
Accuracy of conversion formula for effect sizes: A Monte Carlo simulation115
A mapping exercise using automated techniques to develop a search strategy to identify systematic review tools113
Towards the automatic risk of bias assessment on randomized controlled trials: A comparison of RobotReviewer and humans90
Including non‐English language articles in systematic reviews: A reflection on processes for identifying low‐cost sources of translation support68
The age of abundant scholarly information and its synthesis– A time when ‘just google it’ is no longer enough68
Meta‐analyses of partial correlations are biased: Detection and solutions56
Assessment of key characteristics, methodology, and effect size measures used in meta‐analysis of human‐health‐related animal studies56
What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies55
Advice for improving the reproducibility of data extraction in meta‐analysis49
Issue Information47
40
39
Synthesis of depression outcomes reported on different scales: A comparison of methods for modelling mean differences35
CausalMetaR: An R package for performing causally interpretable meta-analyses31
Bias propagation in network meta‐analysis models30
Fast‐and‐frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews30
Bayesian meta‐analysis usingSAS PROC BGLIMM27
Retrieving Cochrane reviews is sometimes challenging and their reporting is not always optimal26
Capturing causal claims: A fine-tuned text mining model for extracting causal sentences from social science papers24
Methods for population adjustment with limited access to individual patient data: A review and simulation study23
Correct standard errors can bias meta‐analysis23
0.037419080734253