Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta‐Reviews

Emily Alden Hennessy · Blair T. Johnson · Ciara Keenan

91 citations0/0 files storedApplied Psychology Health and Well-Being

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Psychology Research and Bibliometrics Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A growing body of primary study and systematic review literature evaluates interventions and phenomena in applied and health psychology. Reviews of reviews (i.e., meta-reviews) systematically synthesise and utilise this vast and often overwhelming literature; yet, currently there are few practical guidelines for meta-review authors to follow. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the best practice guidelines for all research synthesis and to detail additional specific considerations and methodological details for the best practice of conducting a rigorous meta-review. METHODS: This article provides readers with six systematic and practical steps along with accompanying examples to address with rigor the unique challenges that arise when authors familiar with systematic review methods begin a meta-review: (a) detailing a clear scope, (b) identifying synthesis literature through strategic searches, (c) considering datedness of the literature, (d) addressing overlap among included reviews, (e) choosing and applying review quality tools, and (f) appropriate options for handling the synthesis and reporting of the vast amount of data collected in a meta-review. CONCLUSIONS: We have curated best practice recommendations and practical tips for conducting a meta-review. We anticipate that assessments of meta-review quality will ultimately formalise best-method guidelines.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 91 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2008The qualitative content analysis process 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both 2000Practical Meta-Analysis 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

Cited by

2021Multimedia Design for Learning: An Overview of Reviews With Meta-Meta-Analysis 2023COVID-19 and common mental health symptoms in the early phase of the pandemic: An umbrella review of the evidence 2020A Systematic Overview of Meta-Analyses on Socioeconomic Status, Cognitive Ability, and Achievement: The Need to Focus on Specific Pathways 2023The evidence-base for positive psychology interventions: a mega-analysis of meta-analyses

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.