Sins of omission and commission in systematic reviews in nursing: A commentary on McRae et al. (2015)

Thompson, Carl

doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.003

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are, inevitably, often failings in how systematic reviews are carried out, even in their own terms (seePetticrew and Roberts 2006, p. 270;Thompson 2015).4 Indeed, they may not even be a representative sample of the studies that have actually been done, as a result of publication bias: the tendency for studies that find no relationship between the variables investigated to be much less likely to be published than those that produce positive findings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on the Methodological Approach of Systematic Reviews

Hammersley

2019

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of systematic reviewing of research literatures became influential in the second half of the 20th century, in the context of the longstanding, and challenging, issue of how to 'translate' research findings into reliable guidance for practical decision-making-to determine which policies, programs, and strategies should (and should not) be adopted (Hammersley 2014;Nisbet and Broadfoot 1980). The idea that research can make a significant contribution in assessing the effectiveness of policies and practices was hardly new, but it was greatly bolstered around this time by the emergence of the evidence-based medicine movement. This identified a problem with the effectiveness of many medical treatments: it was argued that research showed that some commonly used ones were ineffective, or even damaging, and that the value of a great many had never been scientifically tested; despite the fact that such testing, in the rigorous form of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), was feasible. Subsequently, the idea that practice must be based on research evidence about effectiveness spread from medicine to other areas, including education.In some countries, notably the UK, this coincided with increasing political criticism of the education system for failing to produce the levels of educational achievement required by the 'knowledge economy' and by 'international competition'. Such criticism was closely related to the rise of the 'new public management' in the 1980s, which focused on increasing the 'accountability' of

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on the Methodological Approach of Systematic Reviews

Hammersley

2019

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Characteristics of Reviews Published in Nursing Literature

Toronto

Quinn

Remington

2018

Advances in Nursing Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrative and systematic reviews present synthesized research. Scholars have called for increased rigor and reporting in reviews. The purpose of this methodological review was to describe the characteristics of nurse-led reviews. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines directed the review process. Many reviews did not clearly report the search strategy used and methods for data extraction and quality appraisal, indicating that there has not been an increase in rigor. Authors of reviews are encouraged to report sufficient methodological details, so peer reviewers and consumers can determine whether the methods were rigorous enough to contribute meaningful results.

show abstract

Sins of omission and commission in systematic reviews in nursing: A commentary on McRae et al. (2015)

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Reflections on the Methodological Approach of Systematic Reviews

Reflections on the Methodological Approach of Systematic Reviews

Characteristics of Reviews Published in Nursing Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About