Systematic Reviews

By Barbara A. Kitchenham. Diabetes Care, 2011

722 citations recorded by the source corpus.

During the past few years, I have become interested in evidence-based software engineering [5]. The evidence-based paradigm began in medicine and has totally revolutionised medical research [7]. It is now being adopted by a number of humancentered disciplines such as nursing, social policy, education etc. Although I have some reservations about whether software engineering can adopt fully the evidencebased paradigm, I am convinced that we should adopt certain aspects of the approach immediately. In particular, I believe we should adopt systematic review in place of ad hoc literature reviews, and recognise that a systematic review is a research method in its own right. Currently, all PhD students need to conduct a literature review as a part of their research but such reviews are seldom performed with the rigour now being required in other disciplines (including Information Systems Research, [6]). A systematic review is rigorous method of synthesising existing research related to a topic of interest. Quantitative meta-analysis is one form of systematic review, but it is not mandatory to provide a quantitative summary. Systematic reviews aim to provide a synthesis that is complete (with respect to defined criteria) and unbiased. Systematic reviews must be rigorous i.e. be conducted according to a well-defined procedure and open i.e. the research process must be reported in a manner is understandable to other researchers.

Subfields: Aerospace Engineering, Small Animals, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a47963030f70be75b3f72d7bae2d69104f291ad5

How researchers see this paper

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

In Aerospace Engineering

In Small Animals

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

A re‐evaluation of fixed effect(s) meta‐analysis (2018, background): “same comparison of interventions (Higgins and Green, 2011), to estimates of correlation between two variables (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004), and to measures of the accuracy of a diagnostic test (Leeflang et al., 2008).”
A literature review of critical thinking in engineering education (2019, positive): “The research methodology was structured in five phases following the work of Bennett et al. (2005) as depicted in Figure 1.”
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the management of schizophrenia and related disorders (2016, background): “A metabotropic glutamate receptor agonist showed efficacy for both positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia (Marsman et al., 2013; Patil et al., 2007b), but these outcomes were not replicated and the agent has been withdrawn.”
Supply Chain Risk Management: Present and Future Scope (2012, positive): “SLR is needed to propose a future research agenda (Torgerson, 2003).”
Characterising long COVID: a living systematic review (2021, positive): “14 15 We conducted a ‘living’ systematic review to provide frequently updated evidence on the symptoms and complications of long COVID.”