Use this methodological baseline to target improvements in interpreting risk of bias, reporting study funding, and citing protocols in systematic reviews¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 quant-synthesis), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The review positions its findings as a baseline for quality-improvement work in evidence synthesis: "This report may be used as a baseline for assessing effects of implementing strategies to address limitations identified by this review". The named targets include interpreting risk of bias, reporting funding of individual studies, explaining the selection of study designs, and citing the pre-published protocol. It also recommends future studies explore specific methods such as search strategies and economic considerations.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Requires an assessed baseline of review quality and reporting against which effects of improvement strategies can be measured

Constraints¶

• Findings apply to Campbell intervention reviews published January 2011 to January 2018; the authors state they cannot comment on applicability to non-intervention reviews or non-Campbell reviews

Target Learners¶

• Review authors and editors in the Campbell Collaboration, including its Education coordinating group

Target Learning Goals¶

• Improving methodological quality and reporting completeness of systematic reviews that inform policy and practice decisions

Claims¶

• The evidence base on inclusion effects is methodologically weak: no randomised studies and nearly all synthesised studies at serious risk of bias [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Literature Reviews
• Peer Review Protocols

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Wang X, Welch V, Li M, Yao L, Littell J, Li H, Yang N, Wang J, Shamseer L, Chen Y, Yang K, Grimshaw JM. (2021). The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1134