IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and Usage

Listed author(s):
  • Hansen, Henrik
  • Trifkovic, Neda

While their application in the context of development aid is quite new, systematic reviews have been used and debated in other fields for various decades. Although evidence gathering and synthesis in the context of development aid inarguably faces challenges distinct from other fields, it is expected that experiences about systematic review methodology from other contexts can provide useful inputs to the field of development aid evaluation. Systematic reviews operate in a complex multidisciplinary environment, which requires acknowledging the influence of institutions and social interaction. The Evaluation Study suggests that the scarcity of comparable evidence about the effects of development interventions necessitates that authors of systematic reviews change their strategies when assessing the strength of evidence or synthesizing data. The focus on asking the ‘right’ questions in international development reviews is important precisely because no review process is immune to bias. The study emphasizes that since systematic reviews in international development may be vulnerable to a range of biases. Systematic reviews should not aim, at all cost, at pursuing the classical approach suitable for traditional, ‘easy-to-measure’ situations.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/47993/1/MPRA_paper_47993.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 47993.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 11 Jun 2013
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:47993
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2459
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-992459
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Campbell, Rona & Pound, Pandora & Pope, Catherine & Britten, Nicky & Pill, Roisin & Morgan, Myfanwy & Donovan, Jenny, 2003. "Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 671-684, February.
  2. Hugh Waddington & Howard White & Birte Snilstveit & Jorge Garcia Hombrados & Martina Vojtkova & Philip Davies & Ami Bhavsar & John Eyers & Tracey Perez Koehlmoos & Mark Petticrew & Jeffrey C. Valentin, 2012. "How to do a good systematic review of effects in international development: a tool kit," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 359-387, September.
  3. Maren Duvendack & Jorge Garcia Hombrados & Richard Palmer-Jones & Hugh Waddington, 2012. "Assessing ‘what works’ in international development: meta-analysis for sophisticated dummies," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 456-471, September.
  4. Howard White & Hugh Waddington, 2012. "Why do we care about evidence synthesis? An introduction to the special issue on systematic reviews," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 351-358, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:47993. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.