Surgical systematic reviews: best available evidence or disposable waste?

Klotz R, Tenckhoff S, Probst P

DOI: 10.1515/iss-2022-0029
Published: 2025 Jun
Container: Innovative surgical sciences
Publisher: Not recorded
Open access: yes

Credibility signals

limited evidence Score 45/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.

Show all credibility signals

cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

Cite this work

BibTeX

@article{allodium:10.1515/iss-2022-0029,
  title = {Surgical systematic reviews: best available evidence or disposable waste?},
  author = {Klotz R and Tenckhoff S and Probst P},
  year = {2025},
  journal = {Innovative surgical sciences},
  doi = {10.1515/iss-2022-0029},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2022-0029}
}

RIS

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Surgical systematic reviews: best available evidence or disposable waste?
AU  - Klotz R
AU  - Tenckhoff S
AU  - Probst P
PY  - 2025
JO  - Innovative surgical sciences
DO  - 10.1515/iss-2022-0029
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2022-0029
ER  -

APA

R, K., S, T., & P, P. (2025). Surgical systematic reviews: best available evidence or disposable waste?. Innovative surgical sciences. https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2022-0029

Source records

pubmed · retrieved 2026-09-26T10:09:18.897Z