Cargando…
How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews?
OBJECTIVES: To systematically analyze the use of evidence assessment tools in systematic reviews of management and education. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched selected literature databases and websites to identify systematic reviews on management and education. We extracted gener...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10203209/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37228394 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1160289 |
_version_ | 1785045581653082112 |
---|---|
author | Lan, Hui Yu, Xuan Wang, Zhe Wang, Ping Sun, Yajia Wang, Zijun Su, Renfeng Wang, Ling Zhao, Junxian Hu, Yue Wu, Shouyuan Ren, Mengjuan Yang, Kehu Liu, Xingrong Chen, Yaolong |
author_facet | Lan, Hui Yu, Xuan Wang, Zhe Wang, Ping Sun, Yajia Wang, Zijun Su, Renfeng Wang, Ling Zhao, Junxian Hu, Yue Wu, Shouyuan Ren, Mengjuan Yang, Kehu Liu, Xingrong Chen, Yaolong |
author_sort | Lan, Hui |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To systematically analyze the use of evidence assessment tools in systematic reviews of management and education. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched selected literature databases and websites to identify systematic reviews on management and education. We extracted general information of the included studies and information about the evidence assessment tool they applied, including whether it was used for methodological quality assessment, reporting quality assessment or evidence grading, as well as the name, reference, publication year, version and original intended use of the tool, the role of the tool in the systematic review, and whether the quality determination criteria were given. RESULTS: A total of 299 systematic reviews were included, of which only 34.8% used evidence assessment tools. A total of 66 different evidence assessment tools were used, of which Risk of Bias (ROB) and its updated version (n = 16, 15.4%) were the most frequent. The specific roles of the evidence assessment tools were reported clearly in 57 reviews, and 27 reviews used two tools. CONCLUSION: Evidence assessment tools were seldom used in systematic reviews in social sciences. The understanding and reporting of evidence assessment tools among the researchers and users still needs improvement. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10203209 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102032092023-05-24 How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews? Lan, Hui Yu, Xuan Wang, Zhe Wang, Ping Sun, Yajia Wang, Zijun Su, Renfeng Wang, Ling Zhao, Junxian Hu, Yue Wu, Shouyuan Ren, Mengjuan Yang, Kehu Liu, Xingrong Chen, Yaolong Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine OBJECTIVES: To systematically analyze the use of evidence assessment tools in systematic reviews of management and education. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched selected literature databases and websites to identify systematic reviews on management and education. We extracted general information of the included studies and information about the evidence assessment tool they applied, including whether it was used for methodological quality assessment, reporting quality assessment or evidence grading, as well as the name, reference, publication year, version and original intended use of the tool, the role of the tool in the systematic review, and whether the quality determination criteria were given. RESULTS: A total of 299 systematic reviews were included, of which only 34.8% used evidence assessment tools. A total of 66 different evidence assessment tools were used, of which Risk of Bias (ROB) and its updated version (n = 16, 15.4%) were the most frequent. The specific roles of the evidence assessment tools were reported clearly in 57 reviews, and 27 reviews used two tools. CONCLUSION: Evidence assessment tools were seldom used in systematic reviews in social sciences. The understanding and reporting of evidence assessment tools among the researchers and users still needs improvement. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10203209/ /pubmed/37228394 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1160289 Text en Copyright © 2023 Lan, Yu, Wang, Wang, Sun, Wang, Su, Wang, Zhao, Hu, Wu, Ren, Yang, Liu and Chen. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Medicine Lan, Hui Yu, Xuan Wang, Zhe Wang, Ping Sun, Yajia Wang, Zijun Su, Renfeng Wang, Ling Zhao, Junxian Hu, Yue Wu, Shouyuan Ren, Mengjuan Yang, Kehu Liu, Xingrong Chen, Yaolong How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews? |
title | How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews? |
title_full | How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews? |
title_fullStr | How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews? |
title_full_unstemmed | How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews? |
title_short | How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews? |
title_sort | how about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews? |
topic | Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10203209/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37228394 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1160289 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lanhui howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT yuxuan howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT wangzhe howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT wangping howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT sunyajia howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT wangzijun howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT surenfeng howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT wangling howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT zhaojunxian howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT huyue howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT wushouyuan howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT renmengjuan howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT yangkehu howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT liuxingrong howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews AT chenyaolong howabouttheevidenceassessmenttoolsusedineducationandmanagementsystematicreviews |