Conducting Systematic Evidence Reviews: Core Concepts and Lessons Learned

Evolvement of Information Security Research on Employees' Behavior: A Systematic Review and Future Direction

“…For example, the question "Are you intending to comply with the internet policy in your organization" will be perceived differently from the question "Are you intending to comply with the information security policy." Compared with the results of Sommestad et al's systematic review [38], our findings were reassuring, with all of the journal articles identified by Sommestad et al that matched our inclusion and exclusion criteria included in our review. Furthermore, 15 additional journal articles were identified in our review but not included in Sommestad et al's review [2,3,20,23,24,26,27,[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62].…”

“…The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) was used as one of the primary guidance tools throughout the review to ensure the review quality [37]. AMSTAR is a commonly used measurement scale to assess the systematic review quality using 11 defined items [38].…”

“…In addition to AMSTAR, the procedures for conducting the systematic review were adopted from different existing literature that provided guidelines and recommendations [38][39][40][41][42]. The guidelines provided in this set of literature almost cover the same steps.…”

Effects of interventions with therapeutic suits (clothing) on impairments and functional limitations of children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review

“…Each study's methodological quality was evaluated independently by three examiners using the Checklist for Measuring Study Quality , 18 which is a valid and reliable instrument recommended to be used in systematic reviews that include studies with different experimental designs. 18 , 19 The checklist evaluates the methodological quality of articles according to the following aspects: reporting (10 items); external validity (3 items); internal validity – bias (13 items); and statistical power (one item). 18 , 19 Twenty-five items are given a score of zero (0) if the study does not meet the requirements or a score of one (1) if the study meets the item requirements.…”

“… 18 , 19 The checklist evaluates the methodological quality of articles according to the following aspects: reporting (10 items); external validity (3 items); internal validity – bias (13 items); and statistical power (one item). 18 , 19 Twenty-five items are given a score of zero (0) if the study does not meet the requirements or a score of one (1) if the study meets the item requirements. Item 27 on statistical power is scored between zero (0) and five (5), with higher scores for studies with larger samples.…”