Editorial
doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2.Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems
Affiliations
- PMID:31307555
- PMCID: PMC6631872
- DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2
Item in Clipboard
Editorial
Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems
David Gough et al. Syst Rev..
Display options
Format
Display options
Format
Abstract
This paper builds on a 2012 paper by the same authors which argued that the types and brands of systematic review do not sufficiently differentiate between the many dimensions of different review questions and review methods (Gough et al., Syst Rev 1:28, 2012). The current paper extends this argument by considering the dynamic contexts, or 'evidence ecosystems', within which reviews are undertaken; the fact that these ecosystems are constantly changing; and the relevance of this broader context for understanding 'dimensions of difference' in the unfolding development and refinement of review methods.The concept of an evidence ecosystem is used to consider particular issues within the three key dimensions of difference outlined in the 2012 paper of (1) review aims and approach, (2) structure and components of reviews, and (3) breadth, depth, and 'work done' by reviews.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Figures
Evidence use ecosystem analytical framework [5]
‘Dimensions of difference’ in approaches to synthesis [2]
Map of personal development planning research: research method by country [47]
Similar articles
- Clarifying differences between review designs and methods.Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S.Gough D, et al.Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 9;1:28. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28.Syst Rev. 2012.PMID:22681772Free PMC article.
- The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W.Soll RF, et al.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.Early Hum Dev. 2020.PMID:33036834
- An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview.Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, Estcourt L, Brunton G.Hunt H, et al.Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 1;7(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8.Syst Rev. 2018.PMID:29490699Free PMC article.
- The composition, distribution, and socio-economic dimensions of Ghana's mangrove ecosystems.Ofori SA, Asante F, Boatemaa Boateng TA, Dahdouh-Guebas F.Ofori SA, et al.J Environ Manage. 2023 Nov 1;345:118622. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118622. Epub 2023 Jul 22.J Environ Manage. 2023.PMID:37487451Review.
- Comparing Business, Innovation, and Platform Ecosystems: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Liu Z, Li Z, Zhang Y, Mutukumira AN, Feng Y, Cui Y, Wang S, Wang J, Wang S.Liu Z, et al.Biomimetics (Basel). 2024 Apr 4;9(4):216. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics9040216.Biomimetics (Basel). 2024.PMID:38667227Free PMC article.Review.
Cited by
- Evidence for Continuing Professional Development and Recency of Practice Standards for Regulated Health Professionals in Australia: Protocol for a Systematic Review.Main P, Anderson S.Main P, et al.JMIR Res Protoc. 2022 Apr 13;11(4):e28625. doi: 10.2196/28625.JMIR Res Protoc. 2022.PMID:35416788Free PMC article.
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D.Page MJ, et al.Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 29;10(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4.Syst Rev. 2021.PMID:33781348Free PMC article.No abstract available.
- Defining Coordinated Care for People with Rare Conditions: A Scoping Review.Walton H, Hudson E, Simpson A, Ramsay AIG, Kai J, Morris S, Sutcliffe AG, Fulop NJ.Walton H, et al.Int J Integr Care. 2020 Jun 25;20(2):14. doi: 10.5334/ijic.5464.Int J Integr Care. 2020.PMID:32607101Free PMC article.
- No Recommendation Is (at Least Presently) the Best Recommendation: An Updating Quality Appraisal of Recommendations on Screening for Scoliosis.Płaszewski M.Płaszewski M.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 30;19(11):6659. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116659.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022.PMID:35682242Free PMC article.
- [The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas].Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D.Page MJ, et al.Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022 Dec 30;46:e112. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2022.112. eCollection 2022.Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022.PMID:36601438Free PMC article.Portuguese.
References
- Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews: 2nd Edition. London: Sage; 2017.
- Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods’, Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research. Debate and Pract. 2010;6(2):145–159. doi: 10.1332/174426410X502284. - DOI
- Nowotny H. The potential of transdisciplinarity. Available at:http://www.helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b59.pdf
- Gough D, Maidment C, Sharples J (2018). UK What Works Centres: aims, methods and contexts. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London. ISBN: 978-1-911605-03-4
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources