MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990648940 · doi:10.1136/bmj.l6890

Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline

2020· article· en· W2990648940 on OpenAlexaff
Mhairi Campbell, Joanne E. McKenzie, Amanda Sowden, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Sue Brennan, Simon Ellis, Jamie Hartmann‐Boyce, Rebecca Ryan, Sasha Shepperd, James Thomas, Vivian Welch, Hilary Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsBruyère
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchScottish Government
KeywordsGuidelineMeta-analysisPsychological interventionSystematic reviewTransparency (behavior)Computer scienceData extractionMedicineMEDLINEManagement sciencePathologyEngineeringNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In systematic reviews that lack data amenable to meta-analysis, alternative synthesis methods are commonly used, but these methods are rarely reported. This lack of transparency in the methods can cast doubt on the validity of the review findings. The Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline has been developed to guide clear reporting in reviews of interventions in which alternative synthesis methods to meta-analysis of effect estimates are used. This article describes the development of the SWiM guideline for the synthesis of quantitative data of intervention effects and presents the nine SWiM reporting items with accompanying explanations and examples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.419
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.653
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4190.653
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.038
Bibliometrics0.0190.021
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0120.009
Research integrity0.0170.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.012

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.920
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3,939
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207