TY - JOUR
T1 - How about the evidence assessment tools used in education and management systematic reviews?
AU - Lan, Hui
AU - Yu, Xuan
AU - Wang, Zhe
AU - Wang, Ping
AU - Sun, Yajia
AU - Wang, Zijun
AU - Su, Renfeng
AU - Wang, Ling
AU - Zhao, Junxian
AU - Hu, Yue
AU - Wu, Shouyuan
AU - Ren, Mengjuan
AU - Yang, Kehu
AU - Liu, Xingrong
AU - Chen, Yaolong
N1 - This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China: “Research on the Theoretical System, International Experience and Chinese Path of Evidence-based Social Science” (Project No. 19ZDA142). The funding source had no role in design of study, the collection, analysis, interpretation, and the decision to approve publication of the finished manuscript. The authors are grateful to Janne Estill (Institute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland) for the modification of the full text.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Lan, Yu, Wang, Wang, Sun, Wang, Su, Wang, Zhao, Hu, Wu, Ren, Yang, Liu and Chen.
PY - 2023/5/9
Y1 - 2023/5/9
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - bias
KW - education
KW - evidence based medicine
KW - social science
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85159775130&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fmed.2023.1160289
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2023.1160289
M3 - Journal article
SN - 2296-858X
VL - 10
JO - Frontiers in Medicine
JF - Frontiers in Medicine
M1 - 1160289
ER -