Javascript must be enabled to continue!
PROTOCOL: Assessment of publication time in Campbell systematic reviews: A cross‐sectional survey
View through CrossRef
AbstractThis is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This study has three main objectives: (1) To examine the time duration from title registration to publication of the protocol for a Campbell systematic review and publication of the completed Campbell systematic review; (2) To describe publication times in accordance with the characteristics of the reviews, which include year of publication, type of review, number of authors, number of collaborative institutions, the time gap between the date the search was conducted and review publication, and the length and complexity of the included review (including the number of pages, the number of tables and figures, the number of studies included in the review, the number and type of analyses undertaken, and the number of references); (3) To describe the differences in publication times between Campbell Review Groups.
Title: PROTOCOL: Assessment of publication time in Campbell systematic reviews: A cross‐sectional survey
Description:
AbstractThis is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review.
The objectives are as follows.
This study has three main objectives: (1) To examine the time duration from title registration to publication of the protocol for a Campbell systematic review and publication of the completed Campbell systematic review; (2) To describe publication times in accordance with the characteristics of the reviews, which include year of publication, type of review, number of authors, number of collaborative institutions, the time gap between the date the search was conducted and review publication, and the length and complexity of the included review (including the number of pages, the number of tables and figures, the number of studies included in the review, the number and type of analyses undertaken, and the number of references); (3) To describe the differences in publication times between Campbell Review Groups.
Related Results
Assessment of publication time in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A cross‐sectional survey
Assessment of publication time in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A cross‐sectional survey
AbstractDelayed publication of systematic reviews increases the risk of presenting outdated data. To date, no studies have examined the time and review process from title registrat...
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
AbstractThe search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Sear...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview
Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview
AbstractSTUDY QUESTIONAre systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions?SUMMARY ANSWERThe majority of the systematic r...
Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews
Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews
Abstract
Background
Along with other types of research, it has been stated that the extent of redundancy in systematic reviews has reached epidemic ...
PROTOCOL: Assessment of outcome reporting bias in studies included in Campbell systematic reviews
PROTOCOL: Assessment of outcome reporting bias in studies included in Campbell systematic reviews
AbstractThis is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: To identify methods used to assess the risk of outcome reporting bias (ORB) in studies...
A scoping review on the methodological and reporting quality of scoping reviews in China
A scoping review on the methodological and reporting quality of scoping reviews in China
Abstract
Background
Scoping reviews have emerged as a valuable method for synthesizing emerging evidence, offering a comprehensive contextual overview, and influencing pol...

