Social Work

Funded by the Institute for Library and Museum Services (IMLS), the Evidence Synthesis Institute for Librarians is aimed at library staff supporting evidence syntheses in topics outside of the health sciences. Jointly coordinated by librarians from University of Minnesota, Cornell University, and Carnegie Mellon University, there will be 6 total institutes starting in spring 2021.

• Website for updates on upcoming iterations of the institute and application information

• Training Manual

• Evidence Synthesis Zotero Collection

Cornell University Library Evidence Synthesis Service

• A Guide to Evidence Synthesis

• A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

  Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.

  Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L. and Booth, A. (2019), Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J, 36: 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276

• Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products.

  Littel, J. (2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews
  and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Methods Series: Discussion Paper 5. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1

• Why equating all evidence searches to systematic reviews defies their role in information seeking.

  Fox, Z. E., William s, A. M., Blasingame, M. N., Koonce, T. Y., Kusnoor, S. V., Su, J., Lee, P., Epelbaum, M. I., Naylor, H. M., DesAutels, S. J., Frakes, E. T., & Giuse, N. B. (2019). Why equating all evidence searches to systematic reviews defies their role in information seeking. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 107(4), 613–617. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.707

• What every researcher should know about searching–clarified concepts, search advice, and an agenda to improve finding in academia.

  Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2021). What every researcher should know about searching–clarified concepts, search advice, and an agenda to improve finding in academia. Research Synthesis Methods, 12(2), 136-147.

• Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources.

  Gusenbauer, M, & Haddaway, N. R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Syn Meth. 2020; 11: 181– 217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

• Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews.

  Kugley S, Wade A, Thomas J, Mahood Q, Jørgensen AMK, Hammerstrøm K, Sathe N. Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/cmg.2016.1

• Recording database searches for systematic reviews-what is the value of adding a narrative to peer-review checklists? A case study of NICE interventional procedures guidance.

  Craven, J., & Levay, P. (2011). Recording database searches for systematic reviews-what is the value of adding a narrative to peer-review checklists? A case study of NICE interventional procedures guidance. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(4), 72-87. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8CD09

• Revisiting the need for a literature search narrative: A brief methodological note.

  Cooper, C., Dawson, S., Peters, J., Varley‐Campbell, J., Cockcroft, E., Hendon, J., & Churchill, R. (2018). Revisiting the need for a literature search narrative: A brief methodological note. Research synthesis methods, 9(3), 361-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jrsm.1315

• The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching.

  Haddaway, Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching. PloS One, 10(9), e0138237–e0138237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237

Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)

• Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)

  Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) are standards for the conduct and reporting of Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects in social sciences, including social services. These standards are based on and adapted from Cochrane MECIR conduct and reporting standards

JBI Manual

• JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis

  The JBI is an international evidence-based healthcare organization whose mission includes publishing evidence synthesis reviews. Although the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis is intended for those writing for the JBI, and focused in healthcare, the manual nevertheless serves as an excellent guide in conducting evidence synthesis reviews beyond healthcare. It has separate chapters devoted to synthesis of different types of evidence and to address different types of review questions. It's chapter on scoping reviews is particularly useful.

PRISMA Statements 

• The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

  Page, McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine, 18(3), e1003583–e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583

• Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.

  Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

• PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation.

  Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, O'Brien, KK, Colquhoun, H, Levac, D, Moher, D, Peters, MD, Horsley, T, Weeks, L, Hempel, S et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018,169(7):467-473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850.

• PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews.

  Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB; PRISMA-S Group. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26;10(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.

• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Pocket Guides to Social Work Research Methods

  Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. K. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Oxford University Press.

• Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Second edition)

  Higgins, & Cochrane Collaboration issuing body. (2020). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Second edition). Wiley-Blackwell.

• Research synthesis and meta-analysis : a step-by-step approach (Fifth edition.)

  Cooper. (2017). Research synthesis and meta-analysis : a step-by-step approach (Fifth edition.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

• Doing a Systematic Review : A Student's Guide: Student Resources.

  Boland, Cherry, Dickson, Boland, Angela, Cherry, M. G., & Dickson, R. (2017). Doing a Systematic Review : A Student's Guide: Student Resources.

• Chapter 8 - Step 3 of Evidence-Based Practice: Part 3—Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews: Aggregating Research Results

  Chapter 8 - Step 3 of Evidence-Based Practice: Part 3—Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews: Aggregating Research Results in J. W. Drisko, M. D. Grady, Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Social Work, Essential Clinical Social Work Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15224-6_8

• Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

  Arksey, H. & O'Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8:1, 19-32, DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119616

• Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews in JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis

  Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris, E., & Munn Z. (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI, 2020. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/3283910770/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews

• Qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis in social work research: Uncharted territory

  Aguirre, R. T., & Bolton, K. W. (2014). Qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis in social work research: Uncharted territory. Journal of Social Work, 14(3), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017313476797

• Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach

  Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2012). Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-0-470-65638-9