scholarly journals Explaining what works: using causal chain analysis in systematic reviewsExplaining what works: using causal chain analysis in systematic reviews

10.51744/cmb4 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard White ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Causal Chain ◽  
Farmer Field Schools ◽  
What Works ◽  
Chain Analysis ◽  
Field Schools ◽  
Global Evidence ◽  
Do So

Systematic reviews summarise and synthesise the global evidence about an intervention. By incorporating causal chain analysis, a systematic review moves beyond the question of ‘does it work?’ to ‘why does it work, for whom, under what circumstances and at what cost?’. The CEDIL Methods Brief 4, ‘Using causal chain analysis in systematic reviews’, lays out what causal chain analysis is, the benefits of using it, and how to do so. The brief provides guidance on conducting a causal chain analysis by illustrating with an example of a systematic review on farmer field schools.

scholarly journals Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes: A Systematic Review

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Waddington ◽  
Birte Snilstveit ◽  
Jorge Hombrados ◽  
Martina Vojtkova ◽  
Daniel Phillips ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Farming Practices ◽  
Farmer Field Schools ◽  
Field Schools

scholarly journals PROTOCOL: Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Waddington ◽  
Birte Snilstveit ◽  
Jorge Garcia Hombrados ◽  
Martina Vojtkova ◽  
Jock Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Farming Practices ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Farmer Field Schools ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Field Schools ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Crime Prevention Evaluations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Petrosino ◽  
Claire Morgan ◽  
Trevor Fronius
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
What Works ◽  
Management Procedures ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become a focal point of evidence-based policy in criminology. Systematic reviews use explicit and transparent processes to identify, retrieve, code, analyze, and report on existing research studies bearing on a question of policy or practice. Meta-analysis can combine the results from the most rigorous evaluations identified in a systematic review to provide policymakers with the best evidence on what works for a variety of interventions relevant to reducing crime and making the justice system fairer and more effective. The steps of a systematic review using meta-analysis include specifying the topic area, developing management procedures, specifying the search strategy, developing eligibility criteria, extracting data from the studies, computing effect sizes, developing an analysis strategy, and interpreting and reporting the results. In a systematic review using meta-analysis, after identifying and coding eligible studies, the researchers create a measure of effect size for each experimental versus control contrast of interest in the study. Most commonly, reviewers do this by standardizing the difference between scores of the experimental and control groups, placing outcomes that are conceptually similar but measured differently (e.g., such as re-arrest or reconviction) on the same common scale or metric. Though these are different indices, they do measure a program’s effect on some construct (e.g., criminality). These effect sizes are usually averaged across all similar studies to provide a summary of program impact. The effect sizes also represent the dependent variable in the meta-analysis, and more advanced syntheses explore the role of potential moderating variables, such as sample size or other characteristics related to effect size. When done well and with full integrity, a systematic review using meta-analysis can provide the most comprehensive assessment of the available evaluative literature addressing the research question, as well as the most reliable statement about what works. Drawing from a larger body of research increases statistical power by reducing standard error; individual studies often use small sample sizes, which can result in large margins of error. In addition, conducting meta-analysis can be faster and less resource-intensive than replicating experimental studies. Using meta-analysis instead of relying on an individual program evaluation can help ensure that policy is guided by the totality of evidence, drawing upon a solid basis for generalizing outcomes.

Evidence-Based Management

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Morrell ◽  
Mark Learmonth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Professional Practices ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Nursing Turnover ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Do So

This chapter outlines the case for “evidence-based management” then adopts a critical perspective. To do so, it focuses on a recurring feature of evidence-based writings: the management-as-medicine motif (MAMM). Advocates draw on MAMM in two ways. First, they promote the same model of knowledge production as in medicine, e.g. championing ‘systematic reviews’. Second, they rely on comparisons between management and medicine as professional practices. Identified here are consequent problems and a ‘systematic review’ is considered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This concerns a management phenomenon: nursing turnover and there are now five versions of the review. Bizarrely, these never actually review any evidence and the different versions are incompatible. This shows how the protocols of ‘systematic’ reviews do not necessarily lead to superior evidence, instead they can disguise inaccuracies and inconsistencies. It also exemplifies problems with MAMM.

The Clinical Utility and Assessment of Renal Biomarkers in Acute Kidney Injury After Abdominal Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (44) ◽  
pp. 4695-4701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Karaolanis ◽  
Zachary F. Williams ◽  
Chris Bakoyiannis ◽  
Dimitrios Hadjis ◽  
Mitchell W. Cox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Binding Protein ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Renal Biomarkers ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

: The widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is due to the obvious advantages of the procedure compared to the traditional open repair. However, these advantages have to be weighed against the increased risk of renal dysfunction with EVAR. The evaluation of the perioperative renal function after EVAR has been hampered by the lack of sensitive and specific biochemical markers of acute kidney injury (AKI). The purpose of this study was to summarize all novel renal biomarkers and to evaluate their clinical utility for the assessment of the kidney function after EVAR. A systematic review of the current literature, as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines, was performed to identify relevant studies with novel renal biomarkers and EVAR. Pubmed and Scopus databases were systemically searched. Studies reporting on thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), case reports, case series, letters to the editor, and systematic reviews were excluded. Neutrophil-Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin, Cystatin C, Liver-type fatty-acid-binding protein were the most common among the eligible studies while Interleukin-18, Retinol binding protein, N-acetyle-b-D-glucosaminidase and microalbumin have a sparse appearance in the literature. These biomarkers have been assessed in plasma as well as urine samples with each sample material having its own advantages and drawbacks. Which of these biomarkers has the most potential for assessing postoperative renal failure after EVAR, remains to be proved. The few studies presented in the literature show the potential clinical utility of these biomarkers, but larger studies with longer follow-up are required to determine the precise relationship between these biomarkers and postoperative acute kidney injury.

scholarly journals Typical Challenges of Governance for Sustainable Regional Development in Globalized Latin America: A Multidimensional Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 2702
Author(s):  
Alejandro Balanzo ◽  
Leonardo Garavito ◽  
Héctor Rojas ◽  
Lenka Sobotova ◽  
Oscar Pérez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Regional Development ◽  
Environmental Conservation ◽  
Environmental Concerns ◽  
Regional Sustainability ◽  
Governance Challenges ◽  
Sustainable Regional Development ◽  
Do So

The paper aims to identify and analyze what types of governance challenges for sustainable regional development in the context of globalization are more frequently found in scholarship regarding Latin America. In order to do so, we carried out a systematic review of scholarly works discussing regional sustainability issues across the region. Analytically, it provides a heuristic multidimensional framework for organizing and typifying the most frequent sustainable regional development governance challenges under study, offering a nuanced and interrelated account of economic, environmental, political, and socio-spatial scientific discussions. According to our findings, scholarship on Latin America shows a bricolage-like scenery where political atomization linked to economic factionalism and fragmentation stand out as frequently analyzed situations. Another frequent topic relates to discussions about political endeavors linked to environmental concerns, connecting incidence strategies with collective environmental conservation approaches.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document