Research Capacity journal
R (2002) A realist scheme for social explanation: on 'numbers and narratives',
Building Research Capacity,
K (2002) Belief and subjectivity in research: an introduction to Bayesian
theory, Building Research Capacity,
P and Taylor Fitz-Gibbon, C (2002) Theories, hypotheses, hunches and
ignorance, Building Research Capacity,
P (2002) Workshop evaluation: Introduction to evidence based practice,
Building Research Capacity,
Please also browse the following
themes for references:
Conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis
Critiques and alternative / new approaches
Assessing the quality of studies for inclusion in systematic
reviews and meta-analysis
systematic reviews and meta-analysis
D. & Chalmers, I. (Eds) (1995) Systematic reviews. London:
BMJ Publishing Group.
D., Nursten, J., Williams, P. & Woodward, M. (2000) Should all literature
reviews be systematic? Evaluation and Research in Education,
Collaboration (2001) Campbell systematic reviews: Guidelines for
the preparation of review protocols, 1. Available to download from
the Campbell Collaboration web-site.
M. & Oxman A.D. (Eds) Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.1.5
[updated April 2002]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2002. Oxford:
Update Software. Updated quarterly. Available to download from the Cochrane
H. & Hedges, L.V. (Eds) (1994) The handbook of research synthesis.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
J., Glanville, J. & Sheldon, T. (1996) Undertaking systematic
reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD guidelines for those carrying
out or commissioning reviews. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination,
York: York Publishing Services Ltd. Can be ordered from the NHS Centre
for Reviews and Dissemination web-site.
(2001) Review Group Manual 1.1. London: EPPI-Centre, University
of London. Available to download from the EPPI-Centre web-site.
J.L. (1993) The statistical basis of meta-analysis (review). Stat
Methods Med Res, 2, 121-145.
G.V. (1976) Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ
Res, 5, 3-8.
G.V., McGraw, B. & Smith, M.L. (1981) Meta-analysis in social
research. California: Sage.
R.J. & Thompson, S.G. (1996) A likelihood approach to meta-analysis
with random effects. Stat Med, 15, 619-629.
L.V. & Olkin, I. (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
London: Academic Press.
K.A., Detsky, A.S. & O’Rourke, K. (1987) Meta-analysis in
clinical research. Annal Int Med, 107, 224-233.
R.J. & Pillemar, D.B. (1984) Summing up: the science of reviewing
research. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
G.E., Cook, T.D., Cooper, H. & Hedges, L.V. (Eds) (1994) The
handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
K.L. & Tweedie, R.L. (1995) The impact of method choice in meta-analysis.
Aust J Stats, 37, 19-44.
Research Council (1992) Combining information: statistical opportunities
for research. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
I. (1996) Meta-analysis: current issues in research synthesis. Stat
Med, 15, 1253-1257.
H.S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V.A. & Chalmers, T.C.
(1987) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med,
A.J., Abrams, K.R., Jones, D.R., Sheldon, T.A. & Song, F. (1998)
Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Health Technology
Assessment, 2(19). 276pp. Available to download from the Department
of Health National Co-ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment
S.B. (1988) Meta-analysis. A quantitative approach to research integration.
JAMA, 259, 1685-1689.
and alternative / new approaches
J.H. (1990) Meta-analysis: a review of pros and cons. Pub Health
Rev, 9, 149-151.
H.E., Tan, A., Ashby, D. & Smyth, R.L. (2002) Systematic reviews
and lifelong diseases. BMJ, 325, 381-384.
H.J. (1994) Systematic reviews – meta-analysis and its problems.
BMJ, 309, 789-792.
S. (1994) Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic
methods. Am J Epidemiol, 140, 290-296.
D.R. (1992) Meta-analysis of observational epidemiological studies:
a review. J R Soc Med, 85, 165-168.
J., Ionnidis, J.P.A. & Schmid, C.H. (1998) Summing up evidence:
one answer is not always enough. Lancet, 351, 123-127.
H. (1995) ‘Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative
to meta-analysis’: discussion. A case of ‘either-or’
or ‘as well’ (comment). J Clin Epidemiol, 48, 9-18.
O., Middleton, P., Ezzo, J., Gotzsche, P.C., Hadhazy, V., Herxheimer,
A., Kleinjnen, J. & McIntosh, H. (2001) Quality of Cochrane reviews:
assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ, 323, 829-832.
K.A., Dixon-Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Abrams, K.R. & Jones, D.R.
(2002) Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: a Bayesian
synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence. The Lancet,
T.E., Mastropieri, M.A. & Casto, G. (1987) The quantitative synthesis
of single subject research: methodology and validation. Remedial
and Special Education, 8, 24-33.
R.E. (1986) Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic
and traditional reviews. Educ Res, 15, 5-11.
R.E. (1995) Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis
(review). J Clin Epidemiol, 48, 9-18.
L.A. & Parmar, M.K. (1993) Meta-analysis of the literature or of
individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet, 341,
S.G. (1993) Controversies in meta-analysis: the case of the trials of
serum cholesterol reduction (review). Stat Methods Med Res,
S.G. & Pocock, S.J. (1991) Can meta-analysis be trusted? Lancet,
C.B. and Berlin, J.A. (1988) Publication bias: a problem in interpreting
medical data (with discussion). J R Statist Soc A, 151, 343-353.
C. & Fraser, H. (1995) Identifying relevant studies for systematic
reviews. BMJ, 310, 126.
A. & Wagner, E.E. (1986) Effect of positive findings on submission
and acceptance rates: a note on meta-analysis bias. Professional
Psychology, 17, 136-137.
K., Chan, S., Chalmers, T.C., Sacks, H.S. & Smith, H.J. (1987) Publication
bias and clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 8, 343-353.
K., Scherer, R. & Lefebvre, C. (1994) Systematic reviews –
identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ, 309,
S. & Tweedie, R. (2000) Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based
method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis.
Biometrics, 56(2), 455-63.
E., ZellwegerZahner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C. & Lengeler, C.
(1997) Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English
and German. Lancet, 350, 326-329.
J.L. & Gross, A.J. (1991) Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special
reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a critique. J Clin Epidemiol,
R. (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol
Bull, 86, 638-641.
M.L. (1980) Publication bias and meta-analysis. Evaluation in education,
AJ., Duval, SJ., Tweedie, RL., Abrams, KR & Jones, DR. (2000) Empirical
assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ,
the quality of studies for inclusion in systematic reviews and meta-analysis
T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and
analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
J.D., Burdick, E., Hoaglin, D.C., Mosteller, F. & Chalmers, T.C.
(1990) An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences
to quality scores in controlled randomized trials. Controlled Clin
Trials, 11, 339-352.
K.S., Daya, S. & Jadad, A.R. (1996) The importance of quality of
primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. Arch Int
Med, 156, 661-666.
D., Jadad, A.R., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P. & Walsh, S.
(1995) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials –
an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clin
Trials, 16, 62-73.
K.F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R.J. & Altman, D. (1995) Empirical evidence
of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates
of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA, 273, 408-412.