LibGuides: Social Work Liaison Toolkit: Evidence Synthesis and Advanced Reviews

About

Resources for all stages of evidence synthesis or advanced review projects.

Current page editor: Scott Marsalis

Evidence Synthesis and Advanced Reviews

Evidence Synthesis Institute

Funded by the Institute for Library and Museum Services (IMLS), the Evidence Synthesis Institute for Librarians is aimed at library staff supporting evidence syntheses in topics outside of the health sciences. Jointly coordinated by librarians from University of Minnesota, Cornell University, and Carnegie Mellon University, there will be 6 total institutes starting in spring 2021.

Cornell University Library Evidence Synthesis Service

A Guide to Evidence Synthesis

Review Types

A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.
Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L. and Booth, A. (2019), Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J, 36: 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products.
Littel, J. (2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews
and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Methods Series: Discussion Paper 5. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1
Why equating all evidence searches to systematic reviews defies their role in information seeking.
Fox, Z. E., William s, A. M., Blasingame, M. N., Koonce, T. Y., Kusnoor, S. V., Su, J., Lee, P., Epelbaum, M. I., Naylor, H. M., DesAutels, S. J., Frakes, E. T., & Giuse, N. B. (2019). Why equating all evidence searches to systematic reviews defies their role in information seeking. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 107(4), 613–617. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.707

Search Methods

What every researcher should know about searching–clarified concepts, search advice, and an agenda to improve finding in academia.
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2021). What every researcher should know about searching–clarified concepts, search advice, and an agenda to improve finding in academia. Research Synthesis Methods, 12(2), 136-147.
Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources.
Gusenbauer, M, & Haddaway, N. R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Syn Meth. 2020; 11: 181– 217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews.
Kugley S, Wade A, Thomas J, Mahood Q, Jørgensen AMK, Hammerstrøm K, Sathe N. Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/cmg.2016.1
Recording database searches for systematic reviews-what is the value of adding a narrative to peer-review checklists? A case study of NICE interventional procedures guidance.
Craven, J., & Levay, P. (2011). Recording database searches for systematic reviews-what is the value of adding a narrative to peer-review checklists? A case study of NICE interventional procedures guidance. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(4), 72-87. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8CD09
Revisiting the need for a literature search narrative: A brief methodological note.
Cooper, C., Dawson, S., Peters, J., Varley‐Campbell, J., Cockcroft, E., Hendon, J., & Churchill, R. (2018). Revisiting the need for a literature search narrative: A brief methodological note. Research synthesis methods, 9(3), 361-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jrsm.1315
The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching.
Haddaway, Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching. PloS One, 10(9), e0138237–e0138237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237

Standards for Conducting

Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)

Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)
Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) are standards for the conduct and reporting of Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects in social sciences, including social services. These standards are based on and adapted from Cochrane MECIR conduct and reporting standards

JBI Manual

JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
The JBI is an international evidence-based healthcare organization whose mission includes publishing evidence synthesis reviews. Although the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis is intended for those writing for the JBI, and focused in healthcare, the manual nevertheless serves as an excellent guide in conducting evidence synthesis reviews beyond healthcare. It has separate chapters devoted to synthesis of different types of evidence and to address different types of review questions. It's chapter on scoping reviews is particularly useful.

Standards for Reporting

PRISMA Statements

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
Page, McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine, 18(3), e1003583–e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation.
Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, O'Brien, KK, Colquhoun, H, Levac, D, Moher, D, Peters, MD, Horsley, T, Weeks, L, Hempel, S et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018,169(7):467-473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850.
PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews.
Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB; PRISMA-S Group. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26;10(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.

Resources for Conducting Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Pocket Guides to Social Work Research Methods
Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. K. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Oxford University Press.
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Second edition)
Higgins, & Cochrane Collaboration issuing body. (2020). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Second edition). Wiley-Blackwell.
Research synthesis and meta-analysis : a step-by-step approach (Fifth edition.)
Cooper. (2017). Research synthesis and meta-analysis : a step-by-step approach (Fifth edition.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Doing a Systematic Review : A Student's Guide: Student Resources.
Boland, Cherry, Dickson, Boland, Angela, Cherry, M. G., & Dickson, R. (2017). Doing a Systematic Review : A Student's Guide: Student Resources.
Chapter 8 - Step 3 of Evidence-Based Practice: Part 3—Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews: Aggregating Research Results
Chapter 8 - Step 3 of Evidence-Based Practice: Part 3—Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews: Aggregating Research Results in J. W. Drisko, M. D. Grady, Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Social Work, Essential Clinical Social Work Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15224-6_8

Resources for Conducting Scoping Reviews

Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H. & O'Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8:1, 19-32, DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119616
Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews in JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris, E., & Munn Z. (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI, 2020. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/3283910770/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews

Resources for Conducting a Synthesis of Qualitative Research

Qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis in social work research: Uncharted territory
Aguirre, R. T., & Bolton, K. W. (2014). Qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis in social work research: Uncharted territory. Journal of Social Work, 14(3), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017313476797
Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach
Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2012). Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-0-470-65638-9

Social Work Liaison Toolkit