“A little learning is a dangerous thing”: A call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’

Environment International

Volumn 99, Issue , 2017, Pages 356-360

  Haddaway, Neal R ^a   Land, Magnus ^a   Macura, Biljana ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Evidence; Evidence synthesis; Evidence based policy; Grey literature; Risk of bias; Science policy

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION;

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE-BASED; GREY LITERATURE; INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; QUALITY ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE POLICIES; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT;

LEARNING; LITERATURE REVIEW; RISK; STAKEHOLDER; WORLD BANK;

BIODIVERSITY; EFFECT SIZE; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT REPEATABILITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SHORT SURVEY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; LITERATURE; NOMENCLATURE; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS; UNITED NATIONS;

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HUMANS; PUBLISHING; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; UNITED NATIONS;

EID: 85009363484     PISSN: 01604120     EISSN: 18736750     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.020     Document Type: Short Survey

References (25)

1. Conn, K.M., Identifying Effective Education Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Meta-analysis of Rigorous Impact Evaluations. 2014.
2. Evans, D.K., Popova, A., What really works to improve learning in developing countries? An analysis of divergent findings in systematic reviews. An analysis of divergent findings in systematic reviews. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 7203, 2015 (February 26, 2015).
3. Evans D, Popova A. How Systematic Is That Systematic Review? The Case of Improving Learning Outcomes: The World Bank; 2015b [Available from: http://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/how-systematic-systematic-review-case-improving-learning-outcomes.
4. Glewwe, P., Hanushek, E., Humpage, S., Ravina, R., School resources and educational outcomes in developing countries: a review of the literature from 1990 to 2010. Glewwe, P., (eds.) Education Policy in Developing Countries, 2014, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
5. Haddaway, N.R., Pullin, A.S., The policy role of systematic reviews: past, present and future. Springer Science Reviews 2:1–2 (2014), 179–183.
6. Higgins, J.P., Green, S., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011, John Wiley & Sons.
7. Hopayian, K., Mugford, M., Conflicting conclusions from two systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections for sciatica: which evidence should general practitioners heed?. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 49:438 (1999), 57–61.
8. Jadad, A.R., Cook, D.J., Browman, G.P., A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 156:10 (1997), 1411–1416.
9. Kremer, M., Brannen, C., Glennerster, R., The challenge of education and learning in the developing world. Science 340:6130 (2013), 297–300.
10. Krishnaratne, S., White, H., Carpenter, E., Quality education for all children? What works in education in developing countries. New Delhi: international initiative for impact evaluation (3ie). Working Paper, 20, 2013.
11. McEwan, P.J., Improving learning in primary schools of developing countries a meta-analysis of randomized experiments. Rev. Educ. Res., 0034654314553127, 2014.
12. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151:4 (2009), 264–269.
13. Murnane, R.J., Ganimian, A., Improving educational outcomes in developing countries: lessons from rigorous evaluations. NBER Working Paper, w20284, 2014.
14. Petticrew, M., Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. Br. Med. J., 322(7278), 2001, 98.
15. Pullin, A.S., Stewart, G.B., Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 20:6 (2006), 1647–1656.
16. Steering Group of the Campbell Collaboration. Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines. 2015.
17. The Campbell Collaboration. The Campbell Collaboration 2016 [Available from: www.campbellcollaboration.org.
18. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Collaboration 2016 [Available from: www.cochrane.org.
19. The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management. 2013.
20. The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2016 [Available from: www.environmentalevidence.org.
21. The Department for International Development. Collection: DFID Education Rigorous Literature Review: DFID; 2015 [Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/dfid-education-rigorous-literature-review.
22. The EPPI-Centre. The EPPI-Centre 2016 [Available from: eppi.ioe.ac.uk.
23. Thompson, R., Bandera, E., Burley, V., Cade, J., Forman, D., Freudenheim, J., et al. Reproducibility of systematic literature reviews on food, nutrition, physical activity and endometrial cancer. Public Health Nutr. 11:10 (2008), 1006–1014.
24. Torgerson, C.J., The quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness in literacy learning in English: a ‘tertiary’ review. J. Res. Read. 30:3 (2007), 287–315.
25. Woodcock, P., Pullin, A.S., Kaiser, M.J., Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: a methodology. Biol. Conserv. 176 (2014), 54–62.