The Campbell Collaboration: Providing Better Evidence for a Better World

Research on Social Work Practice

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 6-12

  Littell, Julia H ^a   White, Howard ^b  

^a BRYN MAWR COLLEGE   (United States)

^b The Campbell Collaboration   (India)

Author keywords

evidence based practice; meta analysis; systematic review

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; HUMAN; LEADERSHIP; ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE; PHYSICIAN; SOCIAL WORK; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 85038403943     PISSN: 10497315     EISSN: 15527581     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1049731517703748     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bastain H., Glasziou P., Chalmers I., (2010). Seventy-five trails and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000326. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326
2. Boruch R. F., (1975). Coupling randomized experiments and approximations to experiments in social program evaluation. Sociological Methods and Research, 4, 31–53.
3. Campbell D. T., (1998). The experimenting society. In Dunn W. N., (Ed.), The experimenting society: Essays in honor of Donald T. Campbell. Policy studies: Review annual (Vol. 11, p. 232). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
4. Campbell D. T., Stanley J. C., (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
5. Campbell Collaboration. (2016). Strategy 2016-2018. Retrieved from https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/images/pdf/campbell_collaboration_strategy_2016-18.pdf
6. Campbell Collaboration Steering Group. (2014). Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines (Campbell Policies and Guidelines, Series No. 1). Retrieved from https://campbellcollaboration.org/images/library/campbell_policies_and_guidelines.pdf
7. Campbell Collaboration Steering Group. (2016a). Methodological expectations for Campbell intervention reviews: Conduct standards (Campbell Policies and Guidelines, Series No. 3). Retrieved from https://campbellcollaboration.org/images/library/campbell_methodological_conduct_standards.pdf
8. Campbell Collaboration Steering Group. (2016b). Methodological expectations for Campbell intervention reviews: Reporting standards (Campbell Policies and Guidelines, Series No. 4). Retrieved from https://campbellcollaboration.org/images/library/campbell_methodological_reporting_standards.pdf
9. Chalmers I., Hedges L. V., Cooper H., (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 25, 12–37.
10. Chandler J., Churchill R., Higgins J., Lasserson T., Tovey D., (2012). Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews (Version 2.2). Retrieved from http://www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir
11. Cook T. D., Campbell D. T., (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
12. Cooper H. M., Rosenthal R., (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 442–449. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.3.442
13. Davies P., Boruch R., (2001). The Campbell collaboration does for public policy what Cochrane does for health. British Medical Journal, 323, 294–295.
14. Davies P., Petrosino A., Chalmers I., (1999). The effects of social and educational interventions: Developing an infrastructure for international collaboration to prepare, maintain and promote the accessibility of systematic reviews of relevant research. London, England: School of Public Policy, University College London.
15. Goudie S., (2015). Reflections on the origins of the Campbell Collaboration: An interview with Iain Chalmers. Retrieved from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org
16. Hammerstrøm K., Wade A., Hanz K., Jørgensen A-M. K. (2009). Searching for studies: Information retrieval methods group policy brief. Campbell, CA: The Campbell Library. Retrieved from https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/images/pdf/plain-language/C2_Information_retrieval_policy_brief_new_draft.pdf
17. Hedges L. V., Olkin I., (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
18. Hedges L. V., Tipton E., Johnson M. C., (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
19. Higgins J. P. T.,, Green S., (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0). Retrieved from http://handbook.cochrane.org
20. Institute of Medicine (2011). Standards for systematic reviews. Retrieved from http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-systematic-Reviews.aspx
21. Littell J. H., (2013). The science and practice of research synthesis. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 4, 292–299. doi:10.5243/jsswr.2013.19
22. Littell J. H., (2016, 7 13). The rise of research synthesis: Too much of a good thing? Olkin Award address. Florence, Italy: Society for Research Synthesis Methods.
23. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D. G., the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
24. Moher D., Shamseer L., Clarke M., Ghersi D., Liberati A., Petticrew M., Shekelle P.,…PRISMA-P Group (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4, 1. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/2046-4053-4-1.pdf
25. Petrosino A., (2013). Reflections on the genesis of the Campbell Collaboration. The Experimental Criminologist, 8, 9–12.
26. Petrosino A., Boruch R. F., Rounding C., McDonald S., Chalmers I., (2000). The Campbell Collaboration Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register (C2-SPECTR) to facilitate the preparation and maintenance of systematic reviews of social and educational interventions. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14, 206–219.
27. Petticrew M., Rehfuess E., Noyes J., Higgins J. P. T., Mayhew A., Pantoja T., Shemilt I., Sowden A., (2013). Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: How meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66, 1230–1243.
28. Petticrew M., Roberts H., (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
29. Polanin J. R., Pigott T. D., (2013). The Campbell Collaboration’s systematic review and meta-analysis online training videos. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 229–232. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512469882
30. Rothstein H., Sutton A. J., Bornstein M., (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
31. Salanti G., (2012). Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: Man names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation synthesis tool. Research Synthesis Methods, 3, 80–97. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1037
32. Schuerman J., Soydan H., Macdonald G., Forslund M., de Moya D., Boruch R., (2002). The Campbell Collaboration. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 309–317. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/104973150201200207
33. Smith A., (1996). Mad cows and ecstasy. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 159, 367–383.
34. Thomas J., McNaught J., Ananiadou S., (2011). Applications of text mining within systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 2, 1–14. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.27
35. Wallace B. C., Trikalinos T. A., Lau J., Brodley C., Schmid C. H., (2010). Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics, 11, 55. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/55
36. Wilson D. B., Tanner-Smith E., Mavridis D., (2016). Campbell methods policy note on network meta-analysis (Version 1.0). Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.4073/cmpn.2016.1
37. Wolf F. M., (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Sage Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.