Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide

By M. Petticrew, H. Roberts. 2005

5,017 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5f3d1106094be3017046d7953c2a71e7f4559124

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Promoting Educators’ Use of Culturally Responsive Practices: A Systematic Review of Inservice Interventions (2018, methodology): “In applying this component of the PICO model, we recognized that some flexibility would be necessary to accommodate differences in methodological approach and in the context in which the interventions or programs were delivered (Pettigrew & Roberts, 2006).”
Empirical Studies of Pair Programming for CS/SE Teaching in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review (2011, methodology): “Petticrew and Robert [56] highlight that the two major issues in conducting a SLR search are the sensitivity and specificity of the search.”
Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges (2010, methodology): “…argue that policy analysis is a professional craft with a broad skills base (e.g. Parsons, 2002, 2004), while others give precedence to statistical analytical tools such as cost-benefit analysis (e.g. Argyrous, 2009) or the use of systematic reviews of evidence (e.g. Petticrew & Roberts, 2005).”
Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective (2013, background): “Scheeler et al. (2004) aimed to determine which attributes of performance feedback given to teachers are effective.”
A Systematic Literature Review. Relationships between the Sharing Economy, Sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals (2020, background): “A systematic literature review must “comprehensively identify, appraise and synthesise all relevant studies on a given topic” [17].”
Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice (2012, background): “The demand for answers to such a range of questions has led to the development of different types of systematic reviews (Petticrew and Roberts 2006, Pope et al. 2007, NICE 2009, Snilstveit 2012).”
A systematic review of the factors – enablers and barriers – affecting e-learning in health sciences education (2020, background): “Rodgers M, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Roberts H, Britten N, et al. Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews.”
A scoping review of rapid review methods (2015, background): “For example, it has been estimated that systematic reviews take, on average, 1,139 hours (range 216–2,518 hours) to complete and usually require a budget of at least $100,000 [4].”
From Passively Received Wisdom to Actively Constructed Knowledge: Teaching Systematic Review Skills As a Foundation of Evidence-Based Management (2014, methodology): “For questions about the effects of interventions (which, as discussed below, are the most common type of review questions chosen by students), the acronym PICOC (e.g., Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) can be used to help focus the question.”
Examining the Effects of Preschool Writing Instruction on Emergent Literacy Skills: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2015, methodology): “Systematic reviews can include a meta-analysis component, which involves synthesizing the data from several studies into a single quantitative summary effect size (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008).”
Tourism and GDP (2013, background): “…disciplines such as social and behavioral sciences (Castillo-Manzano and Castro-Nuño 2012; Cooper and Hedges 1994; Lipsey and Wilson 2001; Petticrew and Roberts 2006) and particularly health sciences (Eddy, Hasselblad, and Shachter 1995; Egger, Smith, and Altman 2001; Sutton, Abrams,…”
School-Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization: A Systematic Review (2009, background): “Other Experimental-Control Galloway & Roland (2004) Kaiser-Ulrey (2003)* Ortega et al.”
Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review (2010, methodology): “We followed a formal systematic literature review process for this study [41,32].”