Systematic review template - Campbell Collaboration



Checklist for internal processTaskDoneCover page will be produced at the Campbell SecretariatDisclosure page including DOI number [tracked by the Secretariat in a separate list]Proof read- Language- Reference list- Citation- Title formatsComplete search strategy ready for uploadingPlain language summary – 3 pages: synopsis of findings, key messagesAbstract/Executive summary – approx. 3 pagesTable of contents updated “Properties” fields (File > properties) with meta-information (correct title, authors, topic, keywords)Remove this page before publication.ColophonTitleTitle here, capital letter at the start onlyInstitutionThe Campbell CollaborationAuthorsLastname, FirstnameDoe, JohnSmith, JohnDOI10.4073/csr.200x.x [delete this text: check number in separate list]No. of pagesxxxLast updatedxx Month, 200xCitationLastname F, Doe J, Smith J. Kinship care for the safety, permanency, and well-being of children removed from the home for maltreatment.Campbell Systematic Reviews 20xx:xDOI: 10.4073/csr.200x.xISSN1891-1803Copyright? Lastnameoffirstauthor et al.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.[delete if co-registered]Co-registrationThis review is co-registered within both the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. A version of this review can also be found in the Cochrane Library. [delete entire row if not co-registered]Roles and responsibilities[copy relevant text from review] Example: Author1, Author2, and Author3 contributed to the writing and revising of this protocol. The search strategy was developed with Jo Abbott, Trial Search Coordinator for the Cochrane DPLPG. Marc Winokur will be responsible for updating this review.Editors forthis reviewEditor:Managing editor:Sources of support[copy relevant text from review]Declarations of interest[copy relevant text from review]. Example: The authors have no vested interest in the outcomes of this review, nor any incentive to represent findings in a biased manner.Corresponding author Author nameSocial Work Research Center/School of Social WorkUniversity Name, Education RoadFort Collins, Colorado 80523, USAE-mail: e.mail@ Full list of author information is available at the end of the articleCampbell Systematic ReviewsEditor-in-ChiefJulia Littell, Bryn Mawr College, USAEditorsCrime and JusticeDavid B. Wilson, George Mason University, USACharlotte Gill, George Mason University, USAEducationSandra Jo Wilson, Vanderbilt University, USAInternational DevelopmentBirte Snilstveit, 3ie, UKHugh Waddington, 3ie, UKSocial WelfareBrandy Maynard, St Louis University, USAKnowledge Translation and ImplementationRobyn Mildon, CEI, AustraliaCindy Cai, AIR, USAMethodsTherese Pigott, Loyola University, USARyan Williams, AIR, USAManaging Editor Chui Hsia Yong, The Campbell CollaborationCo-ChairsCrime and JusticeDavid B. Wilson, George Mason University, USAPeter Neyroud, Cambridge University, UKEducationSarah Miller, Queen's University, UKGary W. Ritter, University of Arkansas, USASocial WelfareMairead Furlong, National University of IrelandBrandy Maynard, St Louis University, USAKnowledge Translation and ImplementationRobyn Mildon, CEI, AustraliaCindy Cai, AIR, USAInternational DevelopmentPeter Tugwell, University of Ottawa, CanadaHugh Waddington, 3ie, UKMethodsAriel Aloe, University of Iowa, USAThe Campbell Collaboration was founded on the principle that systematic reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help improve policy and services. Campbell offers editorial and methodological support to review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review. A number of Campbell's editors, librarians, methodologists and external peer reviewers contribute.The Campbell CollaborationP.O. Box 4404 Nydalen0403 Oslo, NorwayTable of contents TOC \o "1-2" Table of contents PAGEREF _Toc465345441 \h 4Plain Language Summary PAGEREF _Toc465345442 \h 6Executive Summary/Abstract PAGEREF _Toc465345443 \h 9Background PAGEREF _Toc465345444 \h 9Objectives PAGEREF _Toc465345445 \h 9Search Methods PAGEREF _Toc465345446 \h 9Selection Criteria PAGEREF _Toc465345447 \h 9Data Collection and Analysis PAGEREF _Toc465345448 \h 9Results PAGEREF _Toc465345449 \h 9Authors’ Conclusions PAGEREF _Toc465345450 \h 9Background PAGEREF _Toc465345451 \h 10The Problem, Condition, or Issue PAGEREF _Toc465345452 \h 10The Intervention PAGEREF _Toc465345453 \h 10How the Intervention Might Work PAGEREF _Toc465345454 \h 10Why it is Important to do the Review PAGEREF _Toc465345455 \h 10Objectives PAGEREF _Toc465345456 \h 11Methods PAGEREF _Toc465345457 \h 12Criteria for Considering Studies for This Review PAGEREF _Toc465345458 \h 12Search Methods for Identification of Studies PAGEREF _Toc465345459 \h 13Data Collection and Analysis PAGEREF _Toc465345460 \h 13Results PAGEREF _Toc465345461 \h 16Description of Studies PAGEREF _Toc465345462 \h 16Risk of Bias in Included Studies PAGEREF _Toc465345463 \h 16Synthesis of Results PAGEREF _Toc465345464 \h 16Discussion PAGEREF _Toc465345465 \h 18Summary of Main Results PAGEREF _Toc465345466 \h 18Overall Completeness and Applicability of Evidence PAGEREF _Toc465345467 \h 18Quality of the Evidence PAGEREF _Toc465345468 \h 18Limitations and Potential Biases in the Review Process PAGEREF _Toc465345469 \h 18Agreements and Disagreements with Other Studies or Reviews PAGEREF _Toc465345470 \h 19Authors’ Conclusions PAGEREF _Toc465345471 \h 20Implications for Practice and Policy PAGEREF _Toc465345472 \h 20Implications for Research PAGEREF _Toc465345473 \h 20References PAGEREF _Toc465345474 \h 21References to Included Studies PAGEREF _Toc465345475 \h 21References to Excluded Studies PAGEREF _Toc465345476 \h 21References to Studies Awaiting Classification PAGEREF _Toc465345477 \h 21References to Ongoing Studies PAGEREF _Toc465345478 \h 21Additional References PAGEREF _Toc465345479 \h 21Information about This Review PAGEREF _Toc465345480 \h 22Review Authors PAGEREF _Toc465345481 \h 22Roles and Responsibilities PAGEREF _Toc465345482 \h 23Sources of Support PAGEREF _Toc465345483 \h 23Declarations of Interest PAGEREF _Toc465345484 \h 23Plans for Updating the Review PAGEREF _Toc465345485 \h 23Author Declaration PAGEREF _Toc465345486 \h 23Tables PAGEREF _Toc465345487 \h 25Example Table: Characteristics of included studies PAGEREF _Toc465345488 \h 25Example Table: Characteristics of excluded studies PAGEREF _Toc465345489 \h 25Example of Another Table PAGEREF _Toc465345490 \h 25Figures PAGEREF _Toc465345491 \h 26Data and analyses PAGEREF _Toc465345492 \h 27Online Supplements PAGEREF _Toc465345493 \h 28Plain Language SummaryReview titleThe title should be in headline style summarizing the main findings of the review e.g. ‘Enforcing conditions makes cash transfers more effective in increasing enrolments’ and ‘Detention of asylum seekers has adverse effects on mental health’. The title for empty reviews can state that there is no evidence, e.g. ‘There is no rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of refugee resettlement programs’. Titles can also reflect the size of the effects or the quality of the evidence, e.g. ‘Limited evidence and limited effects of advocacy to reduce intimate partner violence’.The review in briefA short summary of the main findings of the review. This section may be no more than one sentence, and should not exceed 50 words. For example, ‘Custodial sentences are no better than non-custodial sentences in reducing re-offending.’Selective outcome reporting is to be avoided. So reviews with several primary outcomes will require a longer review in brief section, e.g. ‘Intensive advocacy may improve everyday life for women in domestic violence shelters/refuges and reduce physical abuse. There is no clear evidence that intensive advocacy reduces sexual, emotional, or overall abuse, or that it benefits women’s mental health. It is unclear whether brief advocacy is effective.’What is this review about?This section should includeA ‘problem statement’ of the issue being addressed. For example, ‘Half of all crime takes place in small, localised areas, or hot spots’; and ‘Forests are an important resource for managing climate change because they store carbon, which helps mitigates the effect of carbon emissions. However, the amount of forest cover, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is declining. Deforestation is responsible for 10-17 per cent of global carbon emissions.’A clear description of the intervention being assessed. For example, ‘Payment for environmental services are voluntary contracts to supply a well-defined environmental service in exchange for payment. For the purposes of this review, the service must involve the maintenance or rehabilitation of natural forests.’The outcomes included in the review. For example ‘this review looked at whether custodial and alternative non-custodial sanctions have different effects on the rates of re-offending. ‘Optional: the policy question being addressed. For example, ‘the review considers evidence regarding the debate about whether PESs should also aim to reduce poverty, or whether doing so would undermine conservation efforts.’What is the aim of this review?People do not always understand that the results of a plain language summary come from a systematic review rather than a single study. Some also wrongly assume that the review authors have carried out the studies themselves. A text box should be included on the first page stating what the review studied, and how many studies were included. For example: This Campbell systematic review examines the effects custodial sentences on re-offending, compared to the effects of non-custodial sentences. The review summarizes evidence from fourteen high-quality studies, including three randomized controlled trials and two natural experiments.What is the aim of this review?People do not always understand that the results of a plain language summary come from a systematic review rather than a single study. Some also wrongly assume that the review authors have carried out the studies themselves. A text box should be included on the first page stating what the review studied, and how many studies were included. For example: This Campbell systematic review examines the effects custodial sentences on re-offending, compared to the effects of non-custodial sentences. The review summarizes evidence from fourteen high-quality studies, including three randomized controlled trials and two natural experiments.What are the main findings of this review?First sub-heading: ‘what studies are included?’A brief description of the number of included studies and key characteristics (e.g. study design and region or country). For example, ‘This review includes studies that evaluate the effects of custodial and non-custodial sanctions on re-offending. A total of 38 studies were identified. However, only 14 of these were assessed to be of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the final analysis. The studies spanned the period from 1961 to 2013 and were mostly carried out in the USA, Europe and Australia.’Optional: add a statement about the quality of the evidence. For example, ‘the studies all had some important methodological weaknesses. None of the included studies used experimental designs (random assignment).’Additional sub-headings state the question being answered in that section, for example, ‘Does focusing crime prevention efforts on crime hot spots reduce crime?’ and ‘What factors affect how well PES programmes work?’.These sub-sections give a short summary of the review evidence to answer that question. Present the results consistently, using similar words and expressions for similar levels of effect (see Appendix 1 for suggested wordings). Ensure that the results are reported consistently between the plain language summary and the main text of the review, including the abstract, results, and summary of main results. For example, ‘Yes. There is an overall reduction in crime and disorder when hot spots policing interventions are implemented. The largest reductions are in drug offences, violent crime and disorder offences, with smaller reductions in property crime.’Notes:(1)The findings are presently directly, and in the present tense. So do not write ‘the authors found’ or ‘the review found’.(2)Avoid selective reporting. The results for each main outcome must be presented in the section called “What are the main findings?” (or a variation specific to the review such as ‘Does focusing crime prevention efforts on crime hot spots reduce crime?’). If you found no data on an important outcome, you must present the outcome anyway, but explain that no data were found. Using qualitative statements when presenting the effects of the intervention: You may be able to increase the accessibility of the review by avoiding numbers and using qualitative statements to present the results. By ‘qualitative statements’ we mean an expression of your results in plain language, using similar words and expressions for similar levels of effect. Qualitative statements about effect are difficult to get right. It is easy to cause confusion and misinterpretation by using words inconsistently or statements such as “a high likelihood of somewhat small but possibly important effects”. Appendix 1 includes a set of standardised statements to help authors formulate clear, consistent statements. The use of this tool is not obligatory.Optional sub-heading: How has this intervention worked?Present here the evidence relating to the main assumptions and links in the theory of change for the intervention(s) being assessed. The findings with respect to intermediate outcomes can be reported here.What do the findings of this review mean?Include here the main policy relevant findings and their implications for policy and further research. Reviews do not make policy recommendations. Include also implications for research.How up-to-date is this review?State here when the review authors searched for the included studies: ‘The review authors searched for studies up to 2015. This Campbell Systematic Review was published in January 2017.’Executive summary/AbstractBackgroundUse these headings but make sure to adapt to what is used in the review. No numbering in headings.ObjectivesSample textSearch MethodsSample textSelection CriteriaSample textData Collection and AnalysisSample textResultsSample textAuthors’ ConclusionsSample textBackgroundThe Problem, Condition, or IssueHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsThe InterventionHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsHow the Intervention Might WorkHeadingNormal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsWhy it is Important to do the ReviewHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsObjectivesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsMethodsCriteria for Considering Studies for This ReviewTypes of studiesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsTypes of participantsNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsTypes of interventionsNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsTypes of outcome measuresPrimary outcomesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsSecondary outcomesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsDuration of follow-upNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsTypes of settingsNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsBulletsSearch Methods for Identification of StudiesElectronic searchesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsSearching other resourcesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsData Collection and AnalysisSelection of studiesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsData extraction and managementNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsAssessment of risk of bias in included studiesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsMeasures of treatment effectNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsUnit of analysis issuesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsBulletsDealing with missing dataNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsBulletsAssessment of heterogeneityNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsAssessment of reporting biasesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsData synthesisNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsSubgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneityNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsSensitivity analysisNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsResultsDescription of StudiesResults of the searchNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsIncluded studiesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsExcluded studiesNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsBulletsRisk of Bias in Included StudiesHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsSynthesis of ResultsHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsDiscussionSummary of Main ResultsHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsOverall Completeness and Applicability of EvidenceHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsQuality of the EvidenceHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsLimitations and Potential Biases in the Review ProcessHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsAgreements and Disagreements with Other Studies or ReviewsHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsAuthors’ conclusionsImplications for Practice and PolicyHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsImplications for ResearchHeadingNormal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text Normal text.BulletsBulletsReferencesReferences to Included StudiesAllen, K. D., Wallace, D. P., Renes, D., Bowen, S. L., & Burke, R. V. (2010). Use of video modelling to teach vocational skills to adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(3), 339-349.References to Excluded StudiesAmerican Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: Author.References to Studies Awaiting ClassificationBelcher, R. G., & Smith, M. D. (1994). Coworker attitudes toward employees with autism. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4, 29-36.References to Ongoing StudiesBennett, K., Brady, M. P., Scott, J., Dukes, C., & Frain, M. (2010). The effects of covert audio coaching on the job performance of supported employees. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(3), 173-185.Additional ReferencesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (2012). CDC estimates 1 in 88 children in United States has been identified as having an autism spectrum disorder. Retrieved from: about this reviewReview AuthorsLead review author:The lead author is the person who develops and co-ordinates the review team, discusses and assigns roles for individual members of the review team, liaises with the editorial base and takes responsibility for the on-going updates of the review.Name:Title:Affiliation:Address:City, State, Province or County:Postal Code:Country:Phone:Mobile:Email:Co-author(s): (There should be at least one co-author)Name:Title:Affiliation:Address:City, State, Province or County:Postal Code:Country:Phone:Mobile:Email:Duplicate the Co-Author table as necessary to include all co-authors.Roles and ResponsibilitiesPlease give brief description of content and methodological expertise within the review team. The recommended optimal review team composition includes at least one person on the review team who has content expertise, at least one person who has methodological expertise and at least one person who has statistical expertise. It is also recommended to have one person with information retrieval expertise. Who is responsible for the below areas? Please list their names:?Content:?Systematic review methods: ?Statistical analysis: ?Information retrieval:Sources of SupportDescribe the source(s) of financial and other support for the proposed review. Declarations of InterestPlease declare any potential conflicts of interest. For example, have any of the authors been involved in the development of relevant interventions, primary research, or prior published reviews on the topic?Plans for Updating the ReviewPlease specify how the review will be updated. This should include, at a minimum, information on who will be responsible and the frequency with which updates can be expected.Author DeclarationAuthors’ responsibilitiesBy completing this form, you accept responsibility for maintaining the review in light of new evidence, comments and criticisms, and other developments, and updating the review at least once every five years, or, if requested, transferring responsibility for maintaining the review to others as agreed with the Coordinating Group. If an update is not submitted according to agreed plans, or if we are unable to contact you for an extended period, the relevant Coordinating Group has the right to propose the update to alternative authors.Publication in the Campbell LibraryThe Campbell Collaboration places no restrictions on publication of the findings of a Campbell systematic review in a more abbreviated form as a journal article either before or after the publication of the monograph version in Campbell Systematic Reviews. Some journals, however, have restrictions that preclude publication of findings that have been, or will be, reported elsewhere, and authors considering publication in such a journal should be aware of possible conflict with publication of the monograph version in Campbell Systematic Reviews. Publication in a journal after publication or in press status in Campbell Systematic Reviews should acknowledge the Campbell version and include a citation to it. Note that systematic reviews published in Campbell Systematic Reviews and co-registered with the Cochrane Collaboration may have additional requirements or restrictions for co-publication. Review authors accept responsibility for meeting any co-publication requirements.I understand the commitment required to update a Campbell review, and agree to publish in the Campbell Library. Signed on behalf of the authors:Form completed by: Date:TablesExample Table: Characteristics of included studies Adams 2013MethodsInsert information hereParticipantsNo vertical lines, only horizontal.InterventionsThe table may be used with grey background/bold text on top instead of to the left.OutcomesNotesExample Table: Characteristics of excluded studies Bryant 2013 Reason for exclusionOut of print and unavailableExample of Another TableStudy0utcomeResultsBarth 1994Adoption1.Initial placement in a kinship home decreases the odds of adoption by 50 percent (OR = 0.50)Belanger 2001Adaptive BehaviorsPsychiatric Disorders1.The interaction of type of placement, home index, and temperament match did not account for more of the variance in VABS and DSMD scores than did type of placement aloneBenedict, Zur 1996Institutional Abuse1.Placement in foster care increases the likelihood of association with maltreatment by 4.4 timesFiguresFigure #: Title of figureData and analyses-4826031940500Analysis #: Title of analysisCut/paste graphics from original document. If graphics do not show properly: do the following: Click the graphic (or the empty picture box) once. From the font drop down tool, select “Normal Picture Placement”. The graphic should then appear.Online supplementsList of Online SupplementsOnline Supplement 1Online Supplement 2 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download