When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist
- 15 September 2020
- Vol. 370, m2864
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2864
Abstract
Replication is an essential part of the scientific method, yet replication of systematic reviews is too often overlooked, and done unnecessarily or poorly. Excessive replication (doing the same study repeatedly) is unethical and a cause of research wastage. This article provides consensus based guidance on when to replicate and not replicate systematic reviews.This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2015
- Strategies to increase the ownership and use of insecticide-treated bednets to prevent malariaEmergencias, 2015
- Improving quality of care for persons with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews - what does the evidence tell us?Systematic Reviews, 2013
- Multiple systematic reviews: methods for assessing discordances of resultsInternal and Emergency Medicine, 2012
- Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: A case study in systematic reviews of health care professional remindersJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2012
- Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting GuidelinesPLoS Medicine, 2010
- Setting Priorities in Global Child Health Research Investments: Guidelines for Implementation of the CHNRI MethodCroatian Medical Journal, 2008
- A review and meta‐analysis of the impact of intestinal worms on child growth and nutritionMaternal & Child Nutrition, 2008
- Systematic reviews: when is an update an update?The Lancet, 2006
- The role of judgment calls in meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989