Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: Making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 87-95

  Atkinson, Kayla M ^a   Koenka, Alison C ^a   Sanchez, Carmen E ^a   Moshontz, Hannah ^a   Cooper, Harris ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Guidelines; Literature search; Meta analysis; Research synthesis

Indexed keywords

BIOSTATISTICS; DATA BASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIOSTATISTICS; DATABASES AS TOPIC; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84938687622     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1127     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, (6th ed.). Washington DC.
2. American Psychological Association. 2008. Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist 63(9): 839-851.
3. Chander J, Churchill R, Higgins J, Lasserson T, Tovey D. 2013. Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews (Version 2.3). Retrieved from Cochrane website: http://www.editorial-unit. cochrane.org/mecir.
4. CONSORT. 2010. CONSORT: Transparent reporting of trials. Retrieved from http://www.consort-statement.org/home/
5. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. 1995. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 48(1): 167-171.
6. Cooper H. 2010. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. (5th edn). SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
7. Cooper H, Ribble RG. 1989. Influences on the outcome of literature searches for integrative research reviews. Science Communication 10(3): 179-201.
8. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ. 2005. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Critical Care 9(5): 575-582.
9. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, T Group. 2004. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health 94(3): 31-366.
10. Duval S. 2005. The trim-and-fill method. In Rothstein HR, Sutton, AJ, Borenstein M (eds.), Publication bias in metaanalysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK; 127-144.
11. Fink A. 2005. Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper (2nd edn.), SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA.
12. Galvan JL. 2006. Writing literature reviews. Pyrczak, Los Angeles, CA.
13. Giner-Sorolla R. 2012. Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Psychological Science 7: 562.
14. Harris CR, Coburn N, Rohrer D, Pashler H. 2013. Two failures to replicate high-performance-goal priming effects. PLoS ONE 8(8), e72467.
15. Hart C. 1998. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA.
16. Ioannidis JPA. 2012. Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7: 645.
17. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. 1993. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist 48: 1181-1209.
18. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. 1999. Improving the quality of reports of metaanalyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. The Lancet 354(9193): 1896-1900.
19. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal. pmed.1000097
20. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. 2007. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 4(3): 78.
21. Olds J. 2014. Replication problem workshop at NSF [Web log post]. Retrieved March, 2014, from http://krasnow. blogspot.com/2014/02/replication-problem-workshop-at-nsf.html
22. Pan ML. 2008. Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, (3rd edn.), Pyrczak Publishing, Los Angeles, CA.
23. Pasher H, Wagenmakers E-J. 2012. Editor's introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science 7: 528-530.
24. Price D. 1965. Networks of scientific papers. Science 149: 510-515.
25. Steele KM, Bass KE, Crook MD. 1999. The mystery of the Mozart effect: Failure to replicate. Psychological Science 10(4): 366-369.
26. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Thacker SB. 2000. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. The Journal of the American Medical Association 283(15): 2008-2012.
27. W.T. Grant Foundation. 2013. Portfolio of Grants Related to Education. Author, New York City.