Using bibliographic software to appraise and code data in educational systematic review research

King, Robin M.; Hooper, Barbara; Wood, Wendy

doi:10.3109/0142159x.2011.558138

Cited by 39 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Paper tracking and generic statistical software may have been sufficient to perform a systematic review in the past, but as the volume of evidence and the sophistication of techniques expand, it is increasingly necessary to rely on electronic resources and tools to support high-quality reviews. As detailed in Table 2, such tools can facilitate and archive team communications, streamline the process of inclusion ⁄ exclusion and data abstraction, 23 assist in thematic analysis, format bibliographies and even translate excerpts from articles in other languages.…”

Section: Reviewing Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(i) Define a focused question addressing the population, intervention, comparison (if any) and outcomes. (ii) Evaluate whether a systematic review is appropriate to answer the question. Systematic and non-systematic approaches are complementary; the former summarise research on focused topics and highlight strengths and weaknesses in existing bodies of evidence, whereas the latter integrate research from diverse fields and identify new insights. (iii) Assemble a team and write a study protocol. (iv) Search for eligible studies using multiple databases (MEDLINE alone is insufficient) and other resources (article reference lists, author files, content experts). Expert assistance is helpful. (v) Decide on the inclusion or exclusion of each identified study, ideally in duplicate, using explicitly defined criteria. (vi) Abstract key information (including on study design, participants, intervention and comparison features, and outcomes) for each included article, ideally in duplicate. (vii) Analyse and synthesise the results by narrative or quantitative pooling, investigating heterogeneity, and exploring the validity and assumptions of the review itself. In addition to the seven key steps, the authors provide, information on electronic tools to facilitate the review process, practical tips to facilitate the reporting process and an annotated bibliography.

show abstract

Section: Reviewing Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…tagging which to exclude/include). Reference‐managing software such as Endnote or Mendeley can be shoehorned for this purpose (see King et al …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating systematic reviews, data extraction and meta‐analysis with the metagear package for r

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. The R package ecosystem is rich in tools for the statistics of meta-analysis. However, there are few resources available to facilitate research synthesis as a whole. 2. Here, I present the METAGEAR package for R. It is a comprehensive, multifunctional toolbox with capabilities aimed to cover much of the research synthesis taxonomy: from applying a systematic review approach to objectively assemble and screen the literature, to extracting data from studies, and to finally summarize and analyse these data with the statistics of meta-analysis. 3. Current functionalities of METAGEAR include the following: an abstract screener GUI to efficiently sieve bibliographic information from large numbers of candidate studies; tools to assign screening effort across multiple collaborators/reviewers and to assess inter-reviewer reliability using kappa statistics; PDF downloader to automate the retrieval of journal articles from online data bases; automated data extractions from scatter-plots, box-plots and bar-plots; PRISMA flow diagrams; simple imputation tools to fill gaps in incomplete or missing study parameters; generation of random-effects sizes for Hedges' d, log response ratio, odds ratio and correlation coefficients for Monte Carlo experiments; covariance equations for modelling dependencies among multiple effect sizes (e.g. with a common control, phylogenetic correlations); and finally, summaries that replicate analyses and outputs from widely used but no longer updated meta-analysis software. 4. Research synthesis practices are vital to many disciplines in the sciences, including ecology and evolutionary biology, and METAGEAR aims to enrich the scope, quality and reproducibility of what can be achieved with the systematic review and meta-analysis of research outcomes.

show abstract

“…Some libraries have even created specialized Excel workbooks to document the process in much detail [2]. A method for the inclusion process using EndNote is described by King et al [3], but this process is rather complicated and time-consuming.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%