Cited by 42Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Sciences Research and EducationMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

Conducting Systematic Reviews of Intervention Questions II: Relevance Screening, Data Extraction, Assessing Risk of Bias, Presenting the Results and Interpreting the Findings

Open access
Sargeant, J. M., O'Connor, A. M.·2014·Zoonoses and Public Health

Abstract

Summary: This is the fifth in a series of six articles describing systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. The previous articles in this series overviewed the development of a review protocol and the initial steps in conducting a systematic review: identification of a structured question to be answered and conducting a comprehensive literature search to find potentially relevant original research to address the review question. This article describes relevance screening of literature identified in the search to determine which of the original research articles are relevant to the review question, data extraction from primary research studies, the use of standardized procedures to assess the risk of bias in the relevant research studies, presenting the results of the body of research identified and interpreting these results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/zph.12124

Cites

38 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Articles providing guidance on conducting systematic reviews in environmental research and health research recommend that eligibility screening should be performed where possible by at least two people.

    “To ensure reliability of the eligibility screening process, articles providing guidance on conducting systematic reviews in environmental research [2, 11, 12] and health research [14, 15, 18] recommend that eligibility screening should be performed where possible by at least two people.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Steps of a Systematic Review II J. M. Sargeant and A. M. O'Connor 18632378, 2014, S1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zph.12124, Wiley Online Library on [17/08/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sargeant, J. M., & O'Connor, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Ontario Veterinary College (CA)
  • Iowa State University (US)
Corresponding author
Sargeant, J. M.
Venue
Zoonoses and Public Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06
Volume
61
Issue
S1
Pages
39-51
ISSN
  • 1863-1959 (ISSN-L)
  • 1863-2378
OpenAlex
W2070619511
Cited by
42
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Zoonoses and Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Public Health Agency
  • Institut pour la Recherche en Santé Publique
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Institute of Population and Public Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
systematic reviews, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, animal agriculture
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Animals, Data Collection, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Veterinary Medicine, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Selection Bias, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval

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