Clarifying differences between review designs and methods.
about
Challenges in the provision of healthcare services for migrants: a systematic review through providers' lensSearch strategies to identify observational studies in MEDLINE and EMBASEWhat do we know about the risks for young people moving into, through and out of inpatient mental health care? Findings from an evidence synthesisIntervention Component Analysis (ICA): a pragmatic approach for identifying the critical features of complex interventionsWhat is the extent and quality of documentation and reporting of fidelity to implementation strategies: a scoping reviewParental drinking and adverse outcomes in children: A scoping review of cohort studiesA systematic mapping of funders of maternal health intervention research 2000-2012What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid reviewPatient and family involvement in adult critical and intensive care settings: a scoping reviewA qualitative systematic review of factors influencing parents' vaccination decision-making in the United KingdomThe IJA system for systematic reviews: "the whys and hows"The use of evidence in English local public health decision-making: a systematic scoping reviewYield of active screening for tuberculosis among asylum seekers in Germany: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Where is students' research in evidence-informed decision-making in health? Assessing productivity and use of postgraduate students' research in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic reviewExperiences of cervical screening and barriers to participation in the context of an organised programme: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.Mapping of research on maternal health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a review of 2292 publications between 2000 and 2012School-based vaccination programmes: a systematic review of the evidence on organisation and delivery in high income countries.What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping reviewRAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews.HIV among immigrants living in high-income countries: a realist review of evidence to guide targeted approaches to behavioural HIV prevention.Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods.Factors influencing the implementation, adoption, use, sustainability and scalability of mLearning for medical and nursing education: a systematic review protocol.Why We Must Continue to Investigate Menthol's Role in the African American Smoking Paradox.Concise review: mesenchymal stromal cells used for periodontal regeneration: a systematic review.A narrative systematic review of factors affecting diabetes prevention in primary care settings.Evidence-based mapping of design heterogeneity prior to meta-analysis: a systematic review and evidence synthesisUnderstanding the Burden on Caregivers of People with Parkinson's: A Scoping Review of the LiteratureNarrative reviews.Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and healthMeta-narrative and realist reviews: guidance, rules, publication standards and quality appraisalHealth status of and health-care provision to asylum seekers in Germany: protocol for a systematic review and evidence mapping of empirical studiesA methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting.Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approachesA scoping review protocol to map the research foci trends in tobacco control over the last decade.Capacity for conducting systematic reviews in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid appraisal.Options for a Health System Researcher to Choose in Meta Review (MR) Approaches-Meta Narrative (MN) and Meta Triangulation (MT)Mapping a Decade of Physical Activity Interventions for Primary Prevention: A Protocol for a Scoping Review of ReviewsInfants at risk of significant hyperbilirubinemia in poorly-resourced countries: evidence from a scoping review.The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: A worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory.Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review.
P2860
Q21146692-08FA16B6-3C91-4305-AAB9-45F47841FDBEQ24202291-5919C633-606E-451F-A0E4-0392001E5F86Q26772076-8E85215B-68E7-4FF2-9C95-864AF635E1AEQ26777945-30CCAD74-FCFF-459E-82D3-6A0914CA9492Q26783373-26D7A879-323F-4148-B361-6836FE66EEF6Q26786544-4077D2ED-30AE-41C9-99B1-44DE7047CC41Q26849235-189BA9BE-5C56-49CD-8E22-25873F13E0F5Q28074678-1499FF8C-38FD-4535-A30C-7A5EBDEB3301Q28075649-9522E3AB-D6C6-4C3B-86EA-7ACBB6316F08Q28077190-3A7516D9-6C0C-4E4E-BB78-0E7F696396D4Q28950592-44E8EE4A-9C97-45EA-BEFC-F54AC7331432Q29994583-B5DC2287-39BA-46D7-A666-598387D531CEQ30234988-DC1967B9-B57B-401F-B783-0AB8A387FF5FQ30235378-FFEC928D-C957-4FE4-8AC1-AE5C86744E8AQ30251598-CAD31C7B-9C7D-4B4F-AA76-EB4DA3F64859Q30381894-E8A9EA11-4630-4E58-B8C4-058966733D1EQ30399860-6CC6EA5D-8115-4D12-ACCD-84B325D5C50EQ30420050-FD8406BD-4FDA-45F4-A4AA-05BB3C6A4AA0Q30485922-50BD405D-07E0-4B4F-A5AE-EEEC637C49E4Q30531037-70317DE7-4EE2-47CC-8286-90D5F7637B54Q30642721-50EBCD20-5B3C-4390-83A3-E2E56B680B5BQ30824396-8E6FD0CF-B695-488D-B278-5A9DBC0289FBQ33362776-2503A95E-19FC-4178-8D15-09139C155E3CQ33690008-469ECDFE-817E-4C64-8F39-CFD390CCCDC3Q33712968-EE88692F-340A-49C8-97A0-DC5FC8728288Q34026774-EB462CA7-6DDB-4003-A0A0-70D3EC0F7405Q34266392-6E7146A8-CBD8-426B-8755-25C44FB094B9Q34391737-29B4609D-0291-4365-9B68-E64612B6EC44Q34397078-619A4F24-F2D3-4D9E-9A3C-DCDC2C27798FQ34567046-5E464A3B-AFC5-4A79-9E5E-51716271C1B8Q34651085-C43EE17F-5E67-486B-8E3E-DCF98CC55F32Q34778517-3D0A3526-0522-4467-AD8F-637B7E805152Q35060250-5780368E-4098-4380-8448-3698F9AB2287Q35550980-F72FA206-8E64-45C8-B90F-0A9C5E84F07DQ35645736-941734B2-1EE8-4369-9271-A4976F8FC995Q35690230-22C8F72D-718E-43D3-AC72-05DB4350AC90Q35717159-5E1BE5EA-22F8-40C9-B0A0-58B846A69E1FQ35802589-47588E6B-B50C-4E46-8F6A-89A889A60E6DQ35927657-DFC197C5-2F7C-4113-AA90-BD26B6B82AD7Q36051259-9B65FC2A-6850-4580-9A56-C7ADB1ADF48E
P2860
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods.
description
article científic
@ca
article scientifique
@fr
articol științific
@ro
articolo scientifico
@it
artigo científico
@gl
artigo científico
@pt
artigo científico
@pt-br
artikel ilmiah
@id
artikull shkencor
@sq
artículo científico
@es
name
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods.
@en
type
label
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods.
@en
prefLabel
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods.
@en
P2093
P2860
P356
P1433
P1476
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods.
@en
P2093
David Gough
James Thomas
Sandy Oliver
P2860
P2888
P356
10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
P577
2012-06-09T00:00:00Z
P5875
P6179
1031630109