Dr. Greg Marchand produces high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses at unusual volume. His reviews are prospectively registered with PROSPERO, reported to PRISMA standards, and appraised with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials.
Volume on its own is not a virtue, so this page sets out exactly how the work is done — how questions are chosen, how searches are run, how data are extracted in duplicate, how bias and certainty are graded, and how results are reported. Reviewers, editors, journalists and prospective collaborators can judge the process rather than take anyone’s word for it.
Scale of Output
| Indexed works | 137 (97 peer-reviewed articles, 35 conference presentations, 4 book chapters and textbooks, 1 patent) |
|---|---|
| PROSPERO protocol registrations | 65 registered under his research program; 41 with Dr. Marchand as named contact |
| Citations | 1,200+ (Google Scholar, verified August 2026); 702 (Scopus); 641 (Web of Science Core Collection) |
| h-index | 18 (Google Scholar); 15 (Scopus); 15 (Web of Science) |
| i10-index | 26 (Google Scholar) |
| Typical annual output | 10–12 peer-reviewed articles plus 3–5 conference presentations |
For a comparison of scale: an independent, unfunded institute sustaining double-digit peer-reviewed meta-analyses per year is unusual. He is able to do this because evidence synthesis is his core academic activity rather than a side project, and because he maintains a standing, trained research team rather than assembling one per study.
How Dr. Marchand Chooses a Question
Dr. Marchand prioritizes questions where a surgical or clinical decision is being made routinely on contested or outdated evidence, where randomized trials exist but have never been pooled, or where a previous review is materially out of date. He deliberately favors questions that change what a surgeon does on Monday morning over questions that are merely publishable.
Because he accepts no industry funding, no sponsor has any influence over which questions he asks, which comparators are included, or whether a null or unfavorable result is published.
Protocol Registration
Review protocols are registered prospectively with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews maintained by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York, before screening begins. Registration fixes the question, the eligibility criteria, the primary and secondary outcomes and the planned analysis in advance, which is the principal defence against outcome-switching and post-hoc analysis. Where the final review departs from the registered protocol, the deviation and its reason are reported in the manuscript.
Searching
Dr. Marchand searches PubMed / MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to a stated cut-off date, supplemented by hand-searching of reference lists and, where relevant, trial registries and conference proceedings. Search strategies are reported in full so that they can be reproduced. Searches are re-run before submission where a long interval has elapsed.
Screening and Data Extraction
Records are screened by two reviewers working independently at both title/abstract and full-text stages, with disagreements resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. Data extraction is likewise performed in duplicate onto a piloted extraction form. Study selection is reported in a PRISMA flow diagram giving records identified, duplicates removed, records screened, full texts assessed, and exclusions with reasons.
Risk of Bias and Certainty
Randomized controlled trials are appraised with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool across its five domains: randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. Non-randomized comparative studies are appraised with tools appropriate to the design, such as ROBINS-I or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Where the evidence base warrants it, a trustworthiness assessment is applied to screen for implausible or irreproducible data before inclusion.
Certainty of evidence is characterized in the discussion, and Dr. Marchand states plainly when pooled estimates are too imprecise or too heterogeneous to support a clinical recommendation.
Synthesis
Dr. Marchand pools using random-effects models as the default, given expected clinical and methodological heterogeneity in surgical literature. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as risk ratios or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals; continuous outcomes as mean differences or standardized mean differences. Heterogeneity is quantified with I² and Cochran’s Q. Where the data allow, he runs subgroup and sensitivity analyses specified in the protocol, and assesses small-study effects and publication bias.
He also uses methods suited to specific problems: time-stratified meta-analysis, where outcomes are compared only at matched follow-up intervals so that apparent differences are not artifacts of measurement timing; network meta-analysis, for comparing multiple devices or techniques that have never been tested head to head; and single-arm meta-analysis, where no comparator literature exists.
Reporting
All reviews are reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement, including the flow diagram, the full search strategy, the risk-of-bias summary, forest plots for each pooled outcome, and an explicit statement of limitations. Conference abstracts arising from a review are cross-referenced to the full publication.
Openness
Dr. Marchand publishes open access wherever the journal and his resources allow, and a substantial share of his catalog is freely available through PubMed Central. Every item in his publications database carries its DOI and, where assigned, its PubMed identifier and PMCID, so that any claim he makes can be traced to source. New work is announced through the publications RSS feed.
Extracted datasets, search strategies and risk-of-bias assessments are available on reasonable request from other researchers.
Independence
Dr. Marchand’s research is conducted through the Marchand Institute, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit (EIN 42-2857240), and accepts no pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding. He and his investigators declare no conflicts of interest and hold no financial relationships with industry. Read the full funding and independence statement.
Collaborate With Dr. Marchand
Dr. Marchand takes on external collaborators on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including clinicians, residents, fellows and students. If you have a question that meets the criteria above, see Propose a Collaboration. You can also meet his research team or read about his clinical trials program.