Steps to Improve Evidence Synthesis Reviews in Social Work
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18060/27235Keywords:
evidence synthesis, quality improvement, faculty librarian collaboration, systematic reviews, research methodsAbstract
Evidence synthesis reviews, including systematic reviews and scoping reviews, are increasingly conducted in social work. With the goal of informing practice and development of policies, these reviews seek to synthesize all available evidence. Yet the quality of published reviews often fails to meet methodological and reporting standards and may lead to incorrect conclusions. This article lays out practical steps review teams should take to assure their project is successful and avoids common errors. Recommended resources for further exploration are included, as well as suggestions for editors and researchers for improving the quality of reviews conducted in social work.
References
Academic Social Work Librarians Group. (2021). Welcome! https://sites.google.com/uncg.edu/aswl/home
ACRL Evidence Synthesis Methods Interest Group. (2024, May 21). ESMIG's evidence synthesis guide: Evidence synthesis mentorship program. https://acrl.libguides.com/ESMIG/Evidence_Synthesis_Resources
Aguirre, R. T., & Bolton, K. W. (2014). Qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis in social work research: Uncharted territory. Journal of Social Work, 14(3), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017313476797
American Library Association. (2020). Social work liaison’s toolkit. https://acrl.libguides.com/c.php?g=1136527&p=8853726
Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z. (Eds.). (2020). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
Center for Open Science [COS]. (2024). OSF registries. https://osf.io/registries
Cooper, C., Dawson, S., Peters, J., Varley‐Campbell, J., Cockcroft, E., Hendon, J., & Churchill, R. (2018). Revisiting the need for a literature search narrative: A brief methodological note. Research Synthesis Methods, 9(3), 361-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1315
Ghezzi-Kopel, K., & Porciello, J. (2021). Evidence synthesis protocol template. Center for Open Science. https://osf.io/nbyhk
Gore, G. C., & Jones, J. (2015). Systematic reviews and librarians: A primer for managers. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 10(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v10i1.3343
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PloS One, 10(9), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237
JBI. (n.d.). JBI critical appraisal tools. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
Ledbetter, L., & Hendren, S. (2021). Quality assessment and risk of bias tool repository. https://osf.io/ws824/
Li, T., & Dickerson, K. (n.d.). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/systematic-review
Littell, J. H. (2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1
Littell, J. H., & Gorman, D. M. (2022). The Campbell Collaboration’s systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not meet mandatory methodological standards. Systematic Reviews, 11, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01998-1
Marsalis, S., & Brown, E. (2020, January). Adoption of systematic and related review methods in social work and reporting quality of underpinning searches [Paper presentation]. Society for Social Work and Research Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. https://sswr.org/2020-conference-home/
The Methods Group of the Campbell Collaboration. (2019). Methodological expectations of Campbell Collaboration intervention reviews: Conduct standards. Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No. 3. https://doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.3
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016). PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Sjekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for the systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
National Institute for Health and Care Research. (n.d.). Welcome to PROSPERO. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
Obschonka, M., Cai, Q., Chan, A. C., Marsalis, S., Basha, S. A., Lee, S. K., & Gewirtz, A. H. (2021). International psychological research addressing the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid scoping review and implications for global psychology. Appendices. Center for Open Science. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A9TPD
PRISMA Executive. (2024). Welcome to the NEW Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) website. https://www.prisma-statement.org
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. B. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
Ross-White, A. (2021). Search is a verb: Systematic review searching as invisible labor. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 109(3), 505-509. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1226
Sarkis-Onofre, R., Catalá-López, F., Aromataris, E., & Lockwood, C. (2021). How to properly use the PRISMA Statement. Systematic Reviews, 10(117), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01671-z
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ (Online), 349(jan02 1), g7647-g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
Townsend, W., Mann, J. D., & Schildhouse, R. J. (2019, January 29). Buried under systematic review requests? Want to maximize the return on your review service? [Webinar]. Medical Library Association. https://macmla.org/mla-january-webinar-buried-under-systematic-review-requests-want-to-maximize-the-return-on-your-review-service/
UK EQUATOR Centre. (n.d.). Library. https://www.equator-network.org/library/
Valentine, J. C., Littell, J. H., & Young, S. (Eds.). (2022). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A Campbell Collaboration online course. Open Learning Initiative. https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis/https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis-o-f/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Scott Marsalis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
