Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
Open accessAbstract
This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews. Terminology is necessary for planning, describing, appraising, and using reviews, building infrastructure to enable the conduct and use of reviews, and for further developing review methodology. There is insufficient consensus on terminology for a typology of reviews to be produced and any such attempt is likely to be limited by the overlapping nature of the dimensions along which reviews vary. It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation. Three such main dimensions are proposed: (1) aims and approaches (including what the review is aiming to achieve, the theoretical and ideological assumptions, and the use of theory and logics of aggregation and configuration in synthesis); (2) structure and components (including the number and type of mapping and synthesis components and how they relate); and (3) breadth and depth and the extent of 'work done' in addressing a research issue (including the breadth of review questions, the detail with which they are addressed, and the amount the review progresses a research agenda). This then provides an overarching strategy to encompass more detailed descriptions of methodology and may lead in time to a more overarching system of terminology for systematic reviews.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
This tertiary review was conducted using explicit, predefined criteria and transparent methods of searching, analysis and reporting.
“this tertiary review was conducted using explicit, predefined criteria and transparent methods of searching, analysis and reporting”
From A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: a call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour (2024) · cites this paper as Gough et al., 2012
Issues of quality when undertaking evidence synthesis persist.
“However, issues of quality when undertaking evidence synthesis persist.”
From A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: a call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour (2024) · cites this paper as Gough et al., 2012
The synthesis methods were not classified as aggregative and configurative.
“the synthesis methods were not classified as aggregative and configurative [45, 46].”
From Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence (2017) · cites this paper as [45]
The current proliferation of review types is creating challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews.
“Indeed, it has already been argued that the current proliferation of review types is creating challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews [9].”
From What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
Gough and colleagues provided clarification between different review designs and methods but stopped short of providing a taxonomy of review types.
“Gough and colleagues [9] provided clarification between different review designs and methods but stopped short of providing a taxonomy of review types.”
From What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823 · see citing works
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042 · see citing works
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859 · see citing works
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742 · see citing works
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,279 · see citing works
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048 · see citing works
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques
Long, D. R., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1993) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328955 · Cited by 17,612 · see citing works
(2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77282-0_6 · Cited by 17,410 · see citing works
Scoping studies: advancing the methodology
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · Cited by 15,268 · see citing works
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312 · see citing works
Self-citation(2008) · Cited by 6,939 · see citing works
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Howel, D., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1995) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533295 · Cited by 3,657 · see citing works
Hattie, J. (2008) · doi:10.4324/9780203887332 · Cited by 3,051 · see citing works
A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity
Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S. (2007) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-2-40 · Cited by 2,559 · see citing works
The Many Meanings of Research Utilization
Weiss, C. H. (1979) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.2307/3109916 · Cited by 2,241 · see citing works
Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies
Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,191 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies.
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1977) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.32.9.752 · Cited by 2,154 · see citing works
Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59 · Cited by 2,087 · see citing works
Self-citationDixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., et al. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 · Cited by 2,053 · see citing works
The Handbook of Research Synthesis.
Light, R. J., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2291021 · Cited by 1,880 · see citing works
Pawson, R. (2006) · doi:10.4135/9781849209120 · Cited by 1,791 · see citing works
Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions
Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-15 · Cited by 1,227 · see citing works
Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001 · Cited by 913 · see citing works
(2003) · Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London) · Cited by 902 · see citing works
A brief history of research synthesis
Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278702025001003 · Cited by 552 · see citing works
Lerigo-Sampson, M. (2022) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781788975865.00016 · Cited by 520 · see citing works
Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., Harden, A., Oakley, A., Oliver, S., Sutcliffe, K., Rees, R., Brunton, G., & Kavanagh, J. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1010 · Cited by 515 · see citing works
Self-citationIntroduction to systematic reviews
O’Connor, E., Whitlock, E. P., & Spring, B. J. (2011) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e657462011-001 · Cited by 463 · see citing works
Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Cooper, K. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-29 · Cited by 461 · see citing works
Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook.
Jackson, S., Cook, T. D., Cooper, H. M., Cordray, D. S., Hartmann, H. I., Hedges, L. V., Light, R. J., Louis, T. A., & Mosteller, F. C. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074578 · Cited by 434 · see citing works
Can We Systematically Review Studies That Evaluate Complex Interventions?
Shepperd, S., Lewin, S., Straus, S., Clarke, M., Eccles, M. P., Fitzpatrick, R., Wong, G., & Sheikh, A. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000086 · Cited by 408 · see citing works
A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research
Oliver, S. R., Rees, R. W., Clarke‐Jones, L., Milne, R., Oakley, A., Gabbay, J., Stein, K., Buchanan, P., & Gyte, G. M. (2008) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x · Cited by 344 · see citing works
Self-citationQualitative Research and Cochrane Reviews
Noyes, J., Popay, J., Pearson, A., Hannes, K., & Booth, A. (2008) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch20 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Evidence‐Based Practice for Education?
Marsh, R. (2005) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410500344738 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Mapping the Mixed Methods–Mixed Research Synthesis Terrain
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Leeman, J., & Crandell, J. (2011) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689811427913 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Journal of Mixed Methods Research
(2008) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods · doi:10.4135/9781412963909.n242 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Evidence-based Practice in Education
Thomas, R. J., Pring, Pring, R., & Thomas, G. (2004) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Best Practice in Systematic Reviews: The Importance of Protocols and Registration
Editors, T. P. M. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Mixed Methods and Systematic Reviews: Examples and Emerging Issues
Harden, A., & Thomas, J. (2010) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781506335193.n29 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Self-citationAn Introduction to Meta-Evaluation.
Scriven, M. (1969) · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Making Sense of Qualitative and Quantitative Findings in Mixed Research Synthesis Studies
Voils, C. I., Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J. V., & Hasselblad, V. (2008) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x07307463 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Expressions of excellence and the assessment of applied and practice‐based research
Oancea, A., & Furlong, J. (2007) · Research Papers in Education · doi:10.1080/02671520701296056 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Combining Campbell Standards and the Realist Evaluation Approach
van der Knaap, L. M., Leeuw, F. L., Bogaerts, S., & Nijssen, L. T. J. (2008) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214007313024 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence
Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Persson, T. J., Bethel, E. C., Hanz, K., & Surkes, M. A. (2010) · Evidence & Policy · doi:10.1332/174426410x524866 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Randomised controlled trials for policy interventions: a review of reviews and meta-regression
Oliver, S. R., Bagnall, A., Thomas, J., Shepherd, J., Sowden, A. J., White, I. R., Dinnes, J., Rees, R. W., Colquitt, J. L., Oliver, K. A., et al. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14160 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Self-citationSnook, I. A., O’Neill, J., Clark, J. C., O'Neill, A.-M., & Openshaw, R. (2009) · New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies · Cited by 74 · see citing works
(2012) · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Commonality and Diversity in Reviews
Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2017) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781036234942.n3 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Self-citationIntroduction to Systematic Reviews
Goodwin, G. M., & Geddes, J. R. (2004) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881104042629 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews: an example from public health
Thomas, J., Harden, A., Oakley, A., Oliver, S. R., Sutcliffe, K., Rees, R. W., Brunton, G., & Kavanagh, J. (2004) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Self-citationMeta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook.
Pearce, S. C., Cook, T. D., Cooper, H. C., Cordray, D. S., Hartmann, H., Hedges, L. V., Light, R. J., Louis, T. A., & Mosteller, F. C. (1993) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532223 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Stakeholder Perspectives and Participation in Reviews
Rees, R., & Oliver, S. R. (2017) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781036234942.n2 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Self-citationTeaching and Learning: Research Briefing
Sutherland, R., John, P. D., & Robertson, S. L. (2006) · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Formalizing Syntheses of Medical Knowledge: The Rise of Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews
Bohlin, I. (2012) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00075 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Oliver, S. R., Dickson, K., Bangpan, M., et al. (2017) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781036234942.n4 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationRapid Evidence Assessment Toolkit
Thomas, J., Newman, M. J., & Gough, D. (2008) · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationRCTs for policy interventions?: a review of reviews and meta-regression
Oliver, S. R., Bagnall, A., Thomas, J., Shepherd, J., Sowden, A. J., White, I. R., Dinnes, J., Rees, R. W., Colquitt, J. L., Oliver, K. A., et al. (2008) · IOE EPrints · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationInformation management in reviews
Brunton, J., & Thomas, J. (2012) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citationMaking a difference with systematic reviews
Stewart, R. J., & Oliver, S. R. (2012) · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationTransparency in planning, warranting and interpreting research
Gough, D., Oliver, S. R., Newman, M., et al. (2009) · IOE EPrints · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationExplaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods
Thompson, S. G., & Sharp, S. J. (1999) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19991030)18:20
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x · Cited by 11,385 · see citing works
van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L., & Saghai, Y. (2021) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9 · Cited by 2,339 · see citing works
Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008 · Cited by 1,987 · see citing works
Davis, R., Campbell, R., Hildon, Z., Hobbs, L., & Michie, S. (2015) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2014.941722 · Cited by 1,411 · see citing works
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 · Cited by 1,164 · see citing works
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8 · Cited by 1,097 · see citing works
Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C. J., Gülmezoglu, M., Noyes, J., Booth, A., Garside, R., & Rashidian, A. (2015) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895 · Cited by 866 · see citing works
A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences
James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6 · Cited by 769 · see citing works
Bond, M., Khosravi, H., De Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., Pham, P., Chong, S. W., & Siemens, G. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z · Cited by 852 · see citing works
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M., & Wassef, M. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 · Cited by 754 · see citing works
“[45], some configurative synthesis can include aggregative component and vice versa.”
BackgroundMethodUnderstanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process
Peterson, J., Pearce, P. F., Ferguson, L. A., & Langford, C. A. (2017) · Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · doi:10.1002/2327-6924.12380 · Cited by 740 · see citing works
O’Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M., & Ananiadou, S. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 · Cited by 681 · see citing works
Self-citationRAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-20 · Cited by 610 · see citing works
A Framework for Guiding and Evaluating Literature Reviews
Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.03706 · Cited by 553 · see citing works
Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research
Berrang-Ford, L., Pearce, T., & Ford, J. D. (2015) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0708-7 · Cited by 474 · see citing works
Hamel, C., Michaud, A., Thuku, M., Skidmore, B., Stevens, A., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., & Garritty, C. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
Flemming, K., Booth, A., Garside, R., Tunçalp, Ö., & Noyes, J. (2019) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000882 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Kastner, M., Tricco, A. C., Soobiah, C., Lillie, E., Perrier, L., Horsley, T., Welch, V., Cogo, E., Antony, J., & Straus, S. E. (2012) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-114 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher professional development: a critical review
Sims, S., & Fletcher-Wood, H. (2021) · School Effectiveness and School Improvement · doi:10.1080/09243453.2020.1772841 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Baxter, L., Tricco, A. C., Straus, S., Wickerson, L., Nayar, A., Moher, D., & O’Malley, L. (2016) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z · Cited by 282 · see citing works
“and components; and breadth and depth, provides a strategy for clarifying the definition and purpose of this methodology [28].”
BackgroundNeophytou, E., Manwell, L. A., & Eikelboom, R. (2021) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-019-00182-2 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Exploring consumers’ intention to accept smartwatch
Wu, L.-H., Wu, L.-C., & Chang, S.-C. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.005 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas
Pullin, A. S., Bangpan, M., Dalrymple, S., Dickson, K., Haddaway, N. R., Healey, J. R., Hauari, H., Hockley, N., Jones, J. P. G., Knight, T., et al. (2013) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/2047-2382-2-19 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Self-citationBooth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G. J., Mozygemba, K., Refolo, P., Sacchini, D., Tummers, M., et al. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.003 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting
France, E. F., Ring, N., Thomas, R., Noyes, J., Maxwell, M., & Jepson, R. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-119 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Does student agency benefit student learning? A systematic review of higher education research
Stenalt, M. H., & Lassesen, B. (2022) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2021.1967874 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
RAPID REVIEW: AN EMERGING APPROACH TO EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Khangura, S., Polisena, J., Clifford, T. J., Farrah, K., & Kamel, C. (2014) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462313000664 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Polisena, J., Garritty, C., Kamel, C., Stevens, A., & Abou-Setta, A. M. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
“How the findings are reported may impact health care decisions and understanding the extent of bias [8].”
BackgroundGupta, R. S., Kujawa, A., & Vago, D. R. (2019) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.08.006 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Self-citationCampbell, M., Egan, M., Lorenc, T., Bond, L., Popham, F., Fenton, C., & Benzeval, M. (2014) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-114 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Caird, J., Sutcliffe, K., Kwan, I., Dickson, K., & Thomas, J. (2015) · Evidence & Policy · doi:10.1332/174426514x13988609036850 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Self-citationEngaging older adults in healthcare research and planning: a realist synthesis
McNeil, H., Elliott, J., Huson, K., Ashbourne, J., Heckman, G., Walker, J., & Stolee, P. (2016) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-016-0022-2 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Health literacy studies conducted in Australia: a scoping review
Choudhry, F. R., Ming, L. C., Munawar, K., Zaidi, S. T. R., Patel, R. P., Khan, T. M., & Elmer, S. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16071112 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Data supply chain (DSC): Research synthesis and future directions
Spanaki, K., Gürgüç, Z., Adams, R., & Mulligan, C. (2018) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1399222 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Capacity for conducting systematic reviews in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid appraisal
Oliver, S., Bangpan, M., Stansfield, C., & Stewart, R. (2015) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0012-0 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“There was a paucity of model examples for incorporating different methodologies required for health systems research or for questions other than about effectiveness (‘what works?’), although this situation has since improved [29].”
MethodSelf-citationBroome, L. J., Izura, C., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2018) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.02.021 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
MOOCs and upskilling in Australia: A qualitative literature study
Santandreu Calonge, D., Aman Shah, M., Riggs, K., Connor, M., & Wang, S. (2019) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2019.1687392 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application
(2020) · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7 · Cited by 467 · see citing works
“However, it is important to keep in mind that most reviews have elements of both (Gough et al. 2012).”
BackgroundAlthuis, M. D., Weed, D. L., & Frankenfeld, C. L. (2014) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-80 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Kállay, É., Medrea, F., & Dégi, C. L. (2022) · The Breast · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2022.02.007 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Baan Wahh, W., Wong Sek Khin, E., & Abdullah, M. (2020) · Asian Journal of Accounting Perspectives · doi:10.22452/ajap.vol13no2.2 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“…step in the proces s.” A systematic review process involve s the use of well-defined and rigorous processes (Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008) to appraise and synthesise the extant literature investigating the similar questions at hand (Boland, Cherry, & Dickson, 2008; Gough, Thomas, & Oliver, 2012).”
MethodHarris, P. T., & Maine, I. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301983 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Gough, David
- Venue
- Systematic Reviews
- Published
- 2012-06-09
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 28-28
- ISSN
- 2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3533815
- OpenAlex
- W2098348335
- Cited by
- 1,063
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 79 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 119 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 37.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Keywords
- terminology, review methodology
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Terminology as Topic, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Guidelines as Topic
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
