The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers

Published:2018-12-18 Issue:4 Volume:34 Page:285-291
ISSN:0167-8329
Container-title:Education for Information
language:
Short-container-title:EFI

Author:

Hong Quan Nha¹²,Fàbregues Sergi³,Bartlett Gillian¹,Boardman Felicity⁴,Cargo Margaret⁵,Dagenais Pierre⁶,Gagnon Marie-Pierre⁷,Griffiths Frances⁴,Nicolau Belinda⁸,O’Cathain Alicia⁹,Rousseau Marie-Claude¹⁰,Vedel Isabelle¹,Pluye Pierre¹²

Affiliation:

1. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

2. Method Development Platform, Quebec SPOR SUPPORT Unit, Montréal, QC, Canada

3. Department of Psychology and Education, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

4. Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

5. Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

6. Faculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

7. Faculté des sciences infirmières, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada

8. Faculty of Dentistry, Division of Oral Health and Society Research, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

9. Medical Care Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

10. INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier Research Centre, Laval, QC, Canada

Publisher

IOS Press

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Education,Information Systems

Reference21 articles.

1. Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews;Carroll,;Qualitative Health Research,2012

2. Impact of quality scales on levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of exercise therapy and low back pain;Colle,;Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,2002

3. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed;Crowe,;Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,2011

4. No “gold standard” critical appraisal tool for allied health research;Glenny,;Evidence-Based Dentistry,2005

5. Quality and relevance appraisal;Harden,;An introduction to systematic reviews,2012

Cited by 3203 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. Factors influencing thirst in ICU patients: A mixed methods systematic review;Intensive and Critical Care Nursing;2025-02

2. Main factors influencing the perceived health risk of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: A systematic literature review;Environmental Research;2024-12

3. Workplace factors impacting the wellbeing of diagnostic radiographers in clinical practice: A literature review;Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences;2024-12

4. Teachers’ views on gameful practices – A scoping review;Teaching and Teacher Education;2024-11

5. Should I stay or should I go? Nursing and midwifery academics intention to stay in or leave academia: A scoping review;Nurse Education Today;2024-11