Good morning, I'm currently doing a PhD in positive psychology with Ilona Boniwell in London and I'm doing a meta-review of meta-analysis... and I feel a bit stuck on the evaluation criteria for the meta-analyses in order not to be rejected by reviewers. Do you think you might be able to help? or advise me someone who could help? I have worked already a series of criteria based on the literature, but I'm scared not to have the right ones...
have a great day,
Elena
Hi,
1 Explain the function of meta-reviews and the main arguments in favour of conducting them;
2 Outline viable solutions to meta-review issues, including conducting exact but thorough searches, handling overlap, keeping information current, offering synthesis options, and determining bias risk;
3 Identify potential areas for meta-review synthesis method advancement.
also refer file Article How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide
Article Guidelines for best practice in the synthesis of synthesis literature
Maybe you could look at previously published umbrella reviews and see what Quality/Appraisal tool they used to evaluate the meta-analyses included in their umbrella review?
thanks Alessio! I did that already... just need to make sure the reviewers will agree!
Here are some meta-analysis resources that may be helpful!
https://www.prisma-statement.org/
https://www.equator-network.org/
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
https://www.covidence.org/
Access the following paper:
Article How to Review a Meta-analysis
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Programming Languages
- Python