What we have learnt adopting evidence-based software engineering for industrial practice

Anderson, Steve; Sagar, Paul M.; Smith, Beth A.; Wallace, Ken

doi:10.1145/2915970.2915981

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We assume that the abstract or title of any quality papers should contain at least one of the search strings. Hence, searching over both the title and abstract columns to exclude papers that have no abstract 20 or those that exclude literature review or any of the search strings (SS), another 12 articles were removed and the total SLRs were further reduced to 53, all of which were subsequently subjected to a more detailed assessment:…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Okesola,

Ogunlana

et al. 2024

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A systematic literature review (SLR) is a research methodology that examines data and findings of other authors relative to specified research questions (RQ), collects multiple research studies, and summarises them to answer a research question using rigorous methods. Many SLRs have been published on uterine fibroids (UFs) in the last two decades but there is a dearth of knowledge on assessment of the quality to determine the reliability of results. Methods This study employed the SLR method to identify available SLRs published on UFs. Dybå and Dingsøyr quality standards and dichotomous grading scales were employed to determine the quality of primary studies. On February 3rd, 2022, an auto search was conducted twice over Citeseer, EBSCO, ACM, Springer Link, IEE Computer society digital library, and Scopus using 17 search strings. Two teams independently screened papers and compared notes with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. 11 criterial were adapted to evaluate the quality of the SLR’s. Results 33 SLRs were subjected to data extraction after inclusion/exclusion criteria. Answers to our primary research question was positive as the aims and contexts of the SLRs are generally clear and the methodologies employed are all inclusive. The research outputs of the primary studies are valid and justifiable as their research statements were clear and findings unambiguous. Although some studies failed some quality criteria, answers to all RQs were affirmative as the percentage scores of the studies on each of the quality conditions is favourably high. Conclusions The auto search may be incomplete because some qualified SLRs may have been missed as the choice of search strings was limited and may have omitted terminologies. Notwithstanding, with average quality scores of 83% in reporting, 81.2% in rigour, and 79% in credibility, this study concludes that majority of the meta-analysis published so far on UF are valid and reliable.

show abstract

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Okesola,

Ogunlana

et al. 2024

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We assume that the abstract or title of any quality papers should contain at least one of the search strings. Hence, searching over both the title and abstract columns to exclude papers that have no abstract 19 or those that exclude literature review or any of the search strings (SS), another 12 articles were removed and the total SLRs were further reduced to 53, all of which were subsequently subjected to a more detailed assessment:…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Okesola

Okesola²,

Ogunlana³

et al. 2022

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A systematic literature review (SLR) is a research methodology that examines data and findings of other authors relative to specified research questions (RQ), collects multiple research studies, and summarises them to answer a research question using rigorous methods. Many SLRs have been published on uterine fibroids (UFs) in the last two decades but there is a dearth of knowledge on assessment of the quality to determine the reliability of results. Methods: This study employed the SLR method to identify available SLRs published on UFs. Dybå and Dingsøyr quality standards and dichotomous grading scales were employed to determine the quality of primary studies. On February 3rd, 2022, an auto search was conducted twice over Citeseer, EBSCO, ACM, Springer Link, IEE Computer society digital library, and Scopus using 17 search strings. Two teams independently screened papers and compared notes with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. 11 criterial were adapted to evaluate the quality of the SLR’s. Results: 33 SLRs were subjected to data extraction after inclusion/exclusion criteria. Answers to our primary research question was positive as the aims and contexts of the SLRs are generally clear and the methodologies employed are all inclusive. The research outputs of the primary studies are valid and justifiable as their research statements were clear and findings unambiguous. Although some studies failed some quality criteria, answers to all RQs were affirmative as the percentage scores of the studies on each of the quality conditions is favourably high. Conclusions: The auto search may be incomplete because some qualified SLRs may have been missed as the choice of search strings was limited and may have omitted terminologies. Notwithstanding, with average quality scores of 83% in reporting, 81.2% in rigour, and 79% in credibility, this study concludes that majority of the meta-analysis published so far on UF are valid and reliable.

show abstract

“…This call for relevance goes beyond empirical studies, and also relates to Systematic Literature Reviews, that also need to have industry relevance [23]. As a reminder, "The aim of an SLR is not just to aggregate all existing evidence on a research question; it is also intended to support the development of evidence-based guidelines for practitioners" [24].…”

Section: Industry Relevancementioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to the EASE 2016 special section: Evidence-based software engineering: Past, present, and future

Beecham

Bowes

Stol

2017

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) had its twentieth anniversary in 2016, with that year's edition hosted in Limerick, Ireland. Founded in 1997, the EASE conference was the first event solely dedicated to encouraging empirical research in software engineering, and its founders have been longtime advocates of evidence-based software engineering (EBSE). In this editorial, we briefly look back at the history of EBSE and the EASE conference. We then introduce the four articles which are revised and extended versions of papers presented at EASE 2016. We conclude by looking at the future of EBSE, and provide some suggestions for conducting and reporting empirical research.

show abstract

What we have learnt adopting evidence-based software engineering for industrial practice

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Introduction to the EASE 2016 special section: Evidence-based software engineering: Past, present, and future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About