Analysis of publication characteristics for Campbell systematic reviews

ID: 

3137

Session: 

Poster session 3 Friday: Evidence Tools / Evidence synthesis - creation, publication and updating in the digital age

Date: 

Friday 15 September 2017 - 12:30 to 14:00

Location: 

Exhibition Halls 1 & 2

All authors in correct order:

Shang W1, Li X2, Chen W3, Liu G4, Wei L5, Liu C5, Si L6, Zhang J5, Yang K2
1 School of public Health of Lanzhou University, China
2 Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Science, Lanzhou University, China
3 Philosophy and sociology school, Lanzhou University, China
4 School of law, Lanzhou University, China
5 School of Economics, Lanzhou University, China
6 School of Information Science & Engineering, Lanzhou University, China
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Wenru Shang

Contact person:

Wenru Shang
Abstract text
Background: The purpose of the Campbell library is to maintain and promote systematic reviews on social sciences so that provide evidence-informed decision making.

Objectives: In order to provide resources and guidance in the field of social sciences by analysing the publication characteristics of Campbell systematic reviews.

Methods: Literature searches of Campbell reviews were conducted. Two authors independently extracted the information on inclusion studies using Microsoft Excel 2007, which included study characteristics, type of document, methods of data collection and analysis.

Results: Three hundred articles met the inclusion criteria. The first Campbell systematic review was published in 2004. The correspondence author in 108 (36%) articles come from the United States, 22(7.3%) from Denmark, 18(6%) from Australia, 17(5.7%) from Canada, 14(4.7%) from Norway, Asia, Africa, and South America have relatively few authors, show in Figure 1. The funding accounted for 72.7%, 16.3% no funding and 11% unclear. 230(77%) were the title of systematic review in Campbell library, 224 (75%) were protocol, 150(50%) were review; 92(30.7%) were user abstract; 36(12%) were plain language summary. The results of methods of data collection and analysis shows that software for documents management mainly included EPPI reviewer (2.3%), Endnote (2%), RefMan (0.7%), Refworks (0.7%); Software of screening included Microsoft Excel (5.3%), Endnote (2.3%), EPPI reviewer (1%); Software for data synthesis included Revman (17.7%), Comprehensive Meta-analysis (9.3%), stata (7.3%), SPSS (3.7%), SAS（2.7%） meanwhile, assessment tool for risk of bias mainly included Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (22.7%), A risk-of-bias model (Reeves,Deeks, Higgins & Wells) (3.3%), EPOC ROB Tool (2.7%).

Conclusions: Campbell reviews provide new ideas for the development of evidence-based practice, especially in developing countries.

Attachments: 

Image icon fig 1.png