CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 565Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEvaluation and Performance AssessmentSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

The Benefits and Challenges of Using Systematic Reviews in International Development Research

Mallett, Richard, Hagen-Zanker, Jessica, Slater, Rachel, Duvendack, Maren·2012·Journal of Development Effectiveness
DOI 10.1080/19439342.2012.711342
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although first applied in the medical sciences in the 1970s, systematic reviews have been recently, and increasingly, used in the field of international development to examine the impacts of a range of development and humanitarian interventions. However, to date, there has been only limited critical reflection on their application within this field. Drawing on the authors' first-hand experiences of conducting eight systematic reviews, this article reflects upon the use of systematic reviews in international development research. It is concluded that although using systematic review principles can help researchers improve the rigour and breadth of literature reviews, conducting a full systematic review is a resource-intensive process which involves a number of practical challenges. Further, it raises a series of fundamental concerns for those working in international development, as well as the social sciences more broadly. Ultimately, systematic reviews should be viewed as a means to finding a robust and sensible answer to a focused research question, but not as an end in themselves.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/19439342.2012.711342

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adhering to SER methodology can be difficult, particularly when the method is applied to non-biomedical research.

    “Adhering to SER methodology can be difficult, particularly when the method is applied to non-biomedical research (Mallett et al., 2012).”

    From Sysrev: A FAIR Platform for Data Curation and Systematic Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as Mallett et al., 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., & Duvendack, M.
Affiliations
  • Overseas Development Institute (GB)
  • Social Protection Programme, Overseas Development Institute
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Development Effectiveness
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2012-09
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
445-455
ISSN
  • 1943-9342 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-9407
DOI
10.1080/19439342.2012.711342
OpenAlex
W1982170224
Cited by
565
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Development Effectiveness (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
systematic reviews, international development research, scientific rigor, humanitarian intervention, development interventions, research methodology challenges

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review