2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(99)00122-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the guide to community preventive services11The names and affiliations of the Task Force members are listed on page v of this supplement and at http://www.thecommunityguide.org

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
98
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 393 publications
(98 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
98
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A study quality scale was developed using elements of existing scales 3133 and methodological factors specific to this review (e.g., type of observational study design, quality of traffic exposure assessment, and quality of health outcome assessment). The scale included 17 items with a maximum possible score of 40.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A study quality scale was developed using elements of existing scales 3133 and methodological factors specific to this review (e.g., type of observational study design, quality of traffic exposure assessment, and quality of health outcome assessment). The scale included 17 items with a maximum possible score of 40.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This checklist is based on the critical appraisal tools from Zaza et al (2000), which is tailored for used in systematic review. Specifically, there are five criteria used to judge the quality of the studies: (1) providing clear study descriptions in relation to research objective, data collection methods and participant characteristics (2) clear sampling methods and adequate sample size (N≥200) (3) adopting valid and reliable measurements (4)an appropriate analysis of the data (5) discussion and conclusion keeping consistent with the results.…”
Section: Quality Of Quantitative Studies Reviewedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the future, systematic reviews of social marketing evidence will need to meet wellestablished criteria of reporting, including providing a flow chart for the process of inclusion and exclusion of studies and a range of other scientific criteria for conducting a meta-analysis, systematic review or rapid evidence review Moher et al, 1999;Zaza et al, 2000). As Liberati et al (2009, p. 1) succinctly phrased it in the most recent version of these guidelines: 'poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users'.…”
Section: What Qualifies As Research and Evidence In Social Marketing?mentioning
confidence: 99%