English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We present a framework consisting of three approaches that can enhancemeta-analyses: 1) scoping reviews (evidence map), 2) bibliometrics, and 3)alternative impact metrics. These three "enrichment" approaches facilitate theresearch synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative evidence, along withacademic and non-academic influences. While the meta-analysis yieldsquantitative insights (e.g., overall estimates), the enrichment analysesprovide user-friendly summaries of qualitative information on the evidencebase. Scoping reviews can visualize study characteristics, unravellingknowledge gaps and methodological differences. Bibliometric analysis offers avisual assessment of the non-independent evidence, such as hyper-dominantauthors and countries, and funding sources, potentially informing the risk ofbias. Impact metric analysis employs alternative metrics to gauge societalinfluence and research translation (e.g., policy and patent citations) ofstudies in the meta-analysis. To illustrate the application of this framework,we provide sample visualizations and R code.

Enriching meta-analyses through scoping review, bibliometrics, and  alternative impact metrics: Visualizing study characteristics, hidden risk of  bias, societal influence, and research translation