SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WITH META-ANALYSIS
Keywords:
Systematic reviews, Knowledge synthesis, Methodology, Evidence-based healthcare, Evidence GapsAbstract
Systematic reviews with meta-analysis have massive potential for summarizing and evaluating scientific evidence. They address and answer specific complex issues relevant to society, such as those relating to Education and Health. Despite their importance, many studies using this method are conducted with significant methodological weaknesses, such as needing to evaluate the quality of the studies included critically. This text, therefore, represents a support resource for researchers seeking to acquire knowledge about systematic reviews with meta-analysis. To this end, the author of this work discussed the theoretical and methodological elements involved in planning, conducting, and publishing systematic reviews using meta-analysis techniques. He presented examples of studies that adopt appropriate and relevant methodological approaches. Nevertheless, some resources (references to methodological guidelines and digital platforms) have been described to support researchers in the operational path of this type of review. The author hopes this text will elucidate paths and possibilities for advancing scientific research using systematic review with meta-analysis in Brazil and other countries, focused on achieving scientific knowledge with quality and, therefore, social commitment.
Downloads
References
AHN, S.; AMES, A. J.; MYERS, N. D. A review of meta-analyses in Education: methodological strengths and weaknesses. Review of Educational Research, v.82, n.4, p.436–476, 2012.
CAMPBELL COLLABORATION. Campbell systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines. Oslo: Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series, 2021.
CHERNIKOVA, O. et al. Simulation-Based Learning in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, v.90, n.4, p.499–541, 2020.
COOPER, H.; HEDGES, L. V.; VALENTINE, J. C. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (Third Edition). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 2019.
EGGER, M.; HIGGINS, J. P. T.; SMITH, G. D. Systematic Reviews in Health Research: Meta-Analysis in Context (Third Edition). Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2022.
KARLSSON, L. E.; TAKAHASHI, R. A resource for developing an evidence synthesis report for policy-making. Geneva: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. 2017.
FISHSTROM, S. et al. A meta-analysis of the effects of academic interventions on academic achievement and academic anxiety outcomes in elementary school children. Journal of School Psychology, v.92, p.265–284, 2022.
HIGGINS, J. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2023.
JOANNA BRIGGS INSTITUTE (JBI). The Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual 2020: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. South Australia: JBI, 2020.
MUNN, Z. et al. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, v.18, n.1, p.5, 2018. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4.
PAGE, M. J. et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLOS Medicine, v.13, n.5, p.e1002028. 2016.
PAGE, M. J.; MOHER, D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, v.6, n.1, p.263, 2017.
PAGE, M. J. et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, v.372, p.160, 2021.
SCHMID, C. Handbook of Meta-Analysis (First Edition). London (UK): Taylor & Francis Group 2021.
SHEA, B. J. et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, v.358, p. j4008, 2017.
SUTTON, A. et al. Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, v.36, n.3, p.202–222, 2019.
TAYLOR, J. A.; PIGOTT, T.; WILLIAMS, R. Promoting knowledge accumulation about intervention effects: exploring strategies for standardizing statistical approaches and effect size reporting. Educational Researcher, v.51, n.1, p.72–80, 2022.
UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND (UNICEF). Evidence synthesis. Florence (Italy): UNICEF Innocenti Office of Research. Available at: https://www.unicef-irc.org/article/1812-evidence-synthesis.html. Accessed in 15 October 2023.
VEMBYE, M. H.; WEISS, F.; BHAt, B. H. The Effects of Co-Teaching and Related Collaborative Models of Instruction on Student Achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 2023.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Valter Cordeiro Barbosa Filho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright
The submission of originals to Cenas Educacionais (CEDU) implies the transfer, by the authors, of the publication rights. The copyright for the manuscripts published in this journal is the author (s), with CEDU rights over the first publication. Authors (s) may only use the same results in other publications by explicitly indicating CEDU as the means of the original publication.
Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise specified, the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License license apply to the material published in this journal, which allows unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original publication is correctly cited.
This work is licensed with a License 