#CochraneTech: Technology and the Future of Systematic Reviews

Elliott, Joanne; Sim, Ida; Thomas, James; Owens, Norma J.; Dooley, Gordon; Riis, Johannes; Wallace, Byron C.; Noel-Storr, Anna; Rada, Gabriel; Struthers, Caroline; Howe, Tracey; MacLehose, Harriet; Brandt, Linn; Kunnamo, Ilkka; Mavergames, Chris

doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000091

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Systematic reviewing has recently witnessed the development and adoption of tools and automation technologies to expedite the review process (Elliott et al, 2014a;Tsafnat et al, 2014), including at study identification stage (O'Mara-Eves, Thomas, McNaught, Miwa & Ananiadou, 2015). Guidance does not exist for most of the review families, with systematic reviews being the exception.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements

Sutton

Clowes

Preston

et al. 2019

Health Info Libraries J

326

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the ‘traditional’ systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance. Methods A list of review types was generated from published typologies and categorised into ‘families’ based on their common features. Guidance on information retrieval for each review type was identified by searching pubmed, medline and Google Scholar, supplemented by scrutinising websites of review producing organisations. Results Forty‐eight review types were identified and categorised into seven families. Published guidance reveals increasing specification of methods for information retrieval; however, much of it remains generic with many review types lacking explicit requirements for the identification of evidence. Conclusions Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging. By familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements

Sutton

Clowes

Preston

et al. 2019

Health Info Libraries J

326

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the development of the national pupil database in the UK, outcome data on student attainment can be accessed for little cost. As more data becomes available on more issues, the relationship between individual data points, primary research and reviews of that research are beginning to merge (Elliott et al, 2014a).…”

Section: Methodological Approaches In Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic reviews of research in education: aims, myths and multiple methods

Gough

Thomas

2016

Review of Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews are still a controversial topic in some quarters, with the arguments for and against their use being well‐rehearsed. In an attempt to advance a more nuanced approach to thinking about systematic reviewing, this paper illustrates the wide range of theoretical perspectives, methodologies and purposes that underpin the vast range of systematic review approaches now available; and in the light of this picture, re‐examines some of the perennial arguments against reviews, arguing that they are often poorly targeted, based on a misreading of what systematic reviews aim to do, or simply incommensurable with the tenets that underpin academic enquiry.

show abstract

“…These vary in the types of evidence they can include and in their ability to perform specific functions within the systematic review process. Elliot and colleagues note that systematic reviewers regularly undertake their review using “a patchwork of general software products that are poorly adapted to their needs,” and it is important to note that limitations of systematic review software are not an issue specific to JBI (Elliott et al., ).…”

Section: The Joanna Briggs Institutementioning

confidence: 99%