The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews
Open accessAbstract
In the decade since the idea of adapting the evidence-based paradigm for software engineering was first proposed, it has become a major tool of empirical software engineering. Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews provides a clear introduction to the use of an evidence-based model for software engineering research and practice. The book explains the roles of primary studies (experiments, surveys, case studies) as elements of an over-arching evidence model, rather than as disjointed elements in the empirical spectrum. Supplying readers with a clear understanding of empirical software engineering best practices, it provides up-to-date guidance on how to conduct secondary studies in software engineeringreplacing the existing 2004 and 2007 technical reports. The book is divided into three parts. The first part discusses the nature of evidence and the evidence-based practices centered on a systematic review, both in general and as applying to software engineering. The second part examines the different elements that provide inputs to a systematic review (usually considered as forming a secondary study), especially the main forms of primary empirical study currently used in software engineering. The final part provides practical guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews (the guidelines), drawing together accumulated experiences to guide researchers and students in planning and conducting their own studies. The book includes an extensive glossary and an appendix that provides a catalogue of reviews that may be useful for practice and teaching.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Garousi, V., Felderer, M., & Mäntylä, M. V. (2019) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.09.006 · Cited by 831
Predicting academic performance: a systematic literature review
Hellas, A., Ihantola, P., Petersen, A., Ajanovski, V. V., Gutica, M., Hynninen, T., Knutas, A., Leinonen, J., Messom, C., & Liao, S. N. (2018) · Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3293881.3295783 · Cited by 355
SEGRESS: Software Engineering Guidelines for REporting Secondary Studies
Kitchenham, B., Madeyski, L., & Budgen, D. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2022.3174092 · Cited by 219
Self-citationMachine learning applied to software testing: A systematic mapping study
Durelli, V. H. S., Durelli, R. S., Borges, S. S., Endo, A. T., Eler, M. M., Dias, D. R. C., & Guimaraes, M. P. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Reliability · doi:10.1109/tr.2019.2892517 · Cited by 207
Using Health Chatbots for Behavior Change: A Mapping Study
Pereira, J., & Díaz, Ó. (2019) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-019-1237-1 · Cited by 199
Metadata
- Authors
- Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., & Brereton, P.
- Venue
- Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks
- Publisher
- Chapman and Hall/CRC
- Published
- 2015-11-04
- OpenAlex
- W2612764117
- Cited by
- 759
- References
- 0
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1201/b19467
- The paper
- Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., & Brereton, P. (2015). Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic Reviews. Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19467
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.