Guidelines for conducting and publishing systematic reviews in Psychology
Keywords:
investigation, Meta-analysis, Research design, Review literatureAbstract
The systematic review refers to the literature review guided by scientifi c methods explicitly intended to reduce bias, resulting in a synthesis of all relevant evidence for a given issue. In Brazil, specifi cally in Psychology, systematic review is found in the literature; however, the available studies do not always refl ect the gold standard or what is expected in terms of typical systematic review procedures. The present study is structured in the form of a didactic guide, organized in topics, which should be typically contemplated in an systematic review in Psychology. The information that must be contained in each of these topics is indicated, including which procedures should be performed in the typical steps of the development of an systematic review. The present publication intends to increase the interest and investment of researchers in systematic review, providing them with information to improve the quality of systematic review in the area of Psychology in Brazil.
Downloads
References
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. G. (2015). Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1. http:/dx./doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z
Davey, J., Turner, R. M., Clarke, M. J., & Higgins, J. P. (2011). Characteristics of meta-analyses and their componente studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: A cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-160
De Winter, J. C., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547-1565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2
Gehanno, J. F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(1), 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-7
Grimshaw, J. (2004). So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 171(7), 747-749. https://dx.doi.10.1503/cmaj.1041255.
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), e0138237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237
Higgins, J. P. T, & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Londres: The Cochrane. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from http://handbook.cochrane.org
Holly, C., Salmond, S., & Saimbert, M. (2012). Comprehensive systematic review for advanced nursing practice. New York: Springer.
Knipschild, P. (1994). Systematic reviews: Some examples. British Medical Journal, 309(6956), 719-721.
Lang, A., Edwards, N., & Fleiszer, A. (2007). Empty systematic reviews: Hidden perils and lessons learned. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(6), 595-597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.01.005
Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Oxônia: Oxford University Press.
McInnes, M. D., Moher, D., Thombs, B. D., McGrath, T. A., Bossuyt, P. M., Clifford, T., ... Hunt, H. A. (2018). Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. Jama, 319(4), 388-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Plos Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., ... Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Moons, K. G., Groot, J. A., Bouwmeester, W., Vergouwe, Y., Mallett, S., Altman, D. G., ... Collins, G. S. (2014). Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: The CHARMS checklist. Plos Medicine, 11(10), e1001744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744
Nichols, H. (1891). The psychology of time. The American Journal of Psychology, 3(4), 453-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1412061
Pauling, L. (1987). How to live longer and feel better. New York: Avon Books.
Petticrew, M. (2001). Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions. British Medical Journal, 322(7278), 98-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7278.98
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). How to appraise the studies: An introduction to assessing study quality. In M. Petticrew & H. Roberts (Eds.), Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide (pp.125-163). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887.ch5
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Treasure, E. T., Chestnutt, I. G., Whiting, P., McDonagh, M., Wilson, P., & Kleijnen, J. (2002). The York review, a systematic review of public water fluoridation: A commentary. British Dental Journal, 192(9), 495-497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4801410
Turner, R. M., Bird, S. M., & Higgins, J. P. (2013). The impact of study size on meta-analyses: Examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews. Plos One, 8(3), e59202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059202Yaffe, J., Montgomery, P., Hopewell, S., & Shepard, L. D. (2012). Empty reviews: A description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. Plos One, 7(5), e36626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036626
Zoltowski, A. P. C., Costa, A. B., Teixeira, M. A. P., & Koller, S. H. (2014). Qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas em periódicos de psicologia brasileiros. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 30(1), 97-104.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Lucas de Francisco CARVALHO, Giselle PIANOWSKI, Manoel Antônio dos SANTOS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
