Principles for good scholarship in systematic reviews

Author:

Kolaski Kat123ORCID,Romeiser Logan Lynne4ORCID,Ioannidis John P. A.5678

Affiliation:

1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston‐Salem NC USA

2. Department of Pediatrics Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston‐Salem NC USA

3. Department of Neurology Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston‐Salem NC USA

4. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation SUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse NY USA

5. Department of Medicine Stanford University Stanford CA USA

6. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health Stanford University Stanford CA USA

7. Department of Statistics Stanford University Stanford CA USA

8. Meta‐Research Innovation Center at Stanford Stanford University Stanford CA USA

Abstract

AbstractMany sources document problems that jeopardize the trustworthiness of systematic reviews. This is a major concern given their potential to influence patient care and impact people's lives. Responsibility for producing trustworthy conclusions on the evidence in systematic reviews is borne primarily by authors who need the necessary training and resources to correctly report on the current knowledge base. Peer reviewers and editors are also accountable; they must ensure that systematic reviews are accurate by demonstrating proper methods. To support all these stakeholders, we attempt to distill the sprawling guidance that is currently available in our recent co‐publication about best tools and practices for systematic reviews. We specifically address how to meet methodological conduct standards applicable to key components of systematic reviews. In this complementary invited review, we place these standards in the context of good scholarship principles for systematic review development. Our intention is to reach a broad audience and potentially improve the trustworthiness of evidence syntheses published in the developmental medicine literature and beyond.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Neurology (clinical),Developmental Neuroscience,Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. A comprehensive review of delay analysis techniques for solving concurrent delays;Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management;2024-02-20

2. The Bobath Clinical Reasoning Framework: Open to debate;Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology;2024-02-11

3. The evidence for shaken baby syndrome (abusive head trauma) is still flawed;Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology;2023-11-20

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3