I normally spend my early mornings listening to the news, reading @[email protected] and sipping tea on the sofa.
This morning I dragged myself for a 2.5k VERY slow jog...reader I did not like it. How people do this regularly I do not know.
Merry Christmas you lot. Thanks for making this year such a joy in spite of… you know *gestures vaguely at the world*
Hope you have a really good one whatever you’re doing.
The Systematic Review Toolbox (developed in 2014) was designed to collate tools that can be used to support the systematic review process.
This work
https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-022-02122-z
describes the process of updating the Toolbox in 2022
The toolbox site is here: http://www.systematicreviewtools.com/
To get a feel for what is does, try searching for meta - this search lists 59 tools -- most of which are related to meta-analyis...
Background The Systematic Review (SR) Toolbox was developed in 2014 to collate tools that can be used to support the systematic review process. Since its inception, the breadth of evidence synthesis methodologies has expanded greatly. This work describes the process of updating the SR Toolbox in 2022 to reflect these changes in evidence synthesis methodology. We also briefly analysed included tools and guidance to identify any potential gaps in what is currently available to researchers. Methods We manually extracted all guidance and software tools contained within the SR Toolbox in February 2022. A single reviewer, with a second checking a proportion, extracted and analysed information from records contained within the SR Toolbox using Microsoft Excel. Using this spreadsheet and Microsoft Access, the SR Toolbox was updated to reflect expansion of evidence synthesis methodologies and brief analysis conducted. Results The updated version of the SR Toolbox was launched on 13 May 2022, with 235 software tools and 112 guidance documents included. Regarding review families, most software tools (N = 223) and guidance documents (N = 78) were applicable to systematic reviews. However, there were fewer tools and guidance documents applicable to reviews of reviews (N = 66 and N = 22, respectively), while qualitative reviews were less served by guidance documents (N = 19). In terms of review production stages, most guidance documents surrounded quality assessment (N = 70), while software tools related to searching and synthesis (N = 84 and N = 82, respectively). There appears to be a paucity of tools and guidance relating to stakeholder engagement (N = 2 and N = 3, respectively). Conclusions The SR Toolbox provides a platform for those undertaking evidence syntheses to locate guidance and software tools to support different aspects of the review process across multiple review types. However, this work has also identified potential gaps in guidance and software that could inform future research.
Voter ID: trouble ahead?
Council staff worried about new requirements for English elections next May
New post, free to read:
Email translations:
“I was under the impression”
Translation: I’m furious
“As per my email”
Translation: I’m furious
“With respect”
Translation: I’m furious
“Whilst I appreciate”
Translation: I’m furious
“As I’m sure you’re aware”
Translation: I’m furious