Literature DB >> 18237350

Motivating authors to update systematic reviews: practical strategies from a behavioural science perspective.

Ann-Margret Ervin1.   

Abstract

Systematic reviews are used by clinicians, policy makers and consumers of health care, and should provide up-to-date evidence for clinical decision making. Motivating systematic review authors to update reviews is a challenge, and despite resources such as methodologists and statisticians, many reviews are not updated in a timely manner. Conflicting clinical responsibilities, lack of funding or other essential resources, and waning interest in the review topic are potential barriers to updating. Illustrations of survey questions to elicit updating attitudes and beliefs, and conditions that make updating easier or more difficult within the framework of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, are presented. These surveys may be used to tailor interventions to assist authors with difficulties and may ultimately increase the rate of updates in the published literature.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18237350      PMCID: PMC4410721          DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00910.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol        ISSN: 0269-5022            Impact factor:   3.980


  8 in total

1.  Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved.

Authors:  I E Allen; I Olkin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Systematic reviews: when is an update an update?

Authors:  David Moher; Alexander Tsertsvadze
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-03-18       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor.

Authors:  Andreas Laupacis; Sharon Straus
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis.

Authors:  Kaveh G Shojania; Margaret Sampson; Mohammed T Ansari; Jun Ji; Steve Doucette; David Moher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.

Authors:  A R Jadad; D J Cook; A Jones; T P Klassen; P Tugwell; M Moher; D Moher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

Authors:  Simon D French; Steve McDonald; Joanne E McKenzie; Sally E Green
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2005-10-14       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Janet H Piehl; Sally Green; Steve McDonald
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-01-17       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Updating a systematic review--what difference did it make? Case study of nicotine replacement therapy.

Authors:  L F Stead; T Lancaster; C A Silagy
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2001-11-01       Impact factor: 4.615

  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  Updating systematic reviews: an international survey.

Authors:  Chantelle Garritty; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Andrea C Tricco; Margaret Sampson; David Moher
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.