Article type
Abstract
Background: The purpose of the Campbell library is to maintain and promote systematic reviews on social sciences so that provide evidence-informed decision making.
Objectives: In order to provide resources and guidance in the field of social sciences by analysing the publication characteristics of Campbell systematic reviews.
Methods: Literature searches of Campbell reviews were conducted. Two authors independently extracted the information on inclusion studies using Microsoft Excel 2007, which included study characteristics, type of document, methods of data collection and analysis.
Results: Three hundred articles met the inclusion criteria. The first Campbell systematic review was published in 2004. The correspondence author in 108 (36%) articles come from the United States, 22(7.3%) from Denmark, 18(6%) from Australia, 17(5.7%) from Canada, 14(4.7%) from Norway, Asia, Africa, and South America have relatively few authors, show in Figure 1. The funding accounted for 72.7%, 16.3% no funding and 11% unclear. 230(77%) were the title of systematic review in Campbell library, 224 (75%) were protocol, 150(50%) were review; 92(30.7%) were user abstract; 36(12%) were plain language summary. The results of methods of data collection and analysis shows that software for documents management mainly included EPPI reviewer (2.3%), Endnote (2%), RefMan (0.7%), Refworks (0.7%); Software of screening included Microsoft Excel (5.3%), Endnote (2.3%), EPPI reviewer (1%); Software for data synthesis included Revman (17.7%), Comprehensive Meta-analysis (9.3%), stata (7.3%), SPSS (3.7%), SAS（2.7%） meanwhile, assessment tool for risk of bias mainly included Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (22.7%), A risk-of-bias model (Reeves,Deeks, Higgins & Wells) (3.3%), EPOC ROB Tool (2.7%).
Conclusions: Campbell reviews provide new ideas for the development of evidence-based practice, especially in developing countries.
Objectives: In order to provide resources and guidance in the field of social sciences by analysing the publication characteristics of Campbell systematic reviews.
Methods: Literature searches of Campbell reviews were conducted. Two authors independently extracted the information on inclusion studies using Microsoft Excel 2007, which included study characteristics, type of document, methods of data collection and analysis.
Results: Three hundred articles met the inclusion criteria. The first Campbell systematic review was published in 2004. The correspondence author in 108 (36%) articles come from the United States, 22(7.3%) from Denmark, 18(6%) from Australia, 17(5.7%) from Canada, 14(4.7%) from Norway, Asia, Africa, and South America have relatively few authors, show in Figure 1. The funding accounted for 72.7%, 16.3% no funding and 11% unclear. 230(77%) were the title of systematic review in Campbell library, 224 (75%) were protocol, 150(50%) were review; 92(30.7%) were user abstract; 36(12%) were plain language summary. The results of methods of data collection and analysis shows that software for documents management mainly included EPPI reviewer (2.3%), Endnote (2%), RefMan (0.7%), Refworks (0.7%); Software of screening included Microsoft Excel (5.3%), Endnote (2.3%), EPPI reviewer (1%); Software for data synthesis included Revman (17.7%), Comprehensive Meta-analysis (9.3%), stata (7.3%), SPSS (3.7%), SAS（2.7%） meanwhile, assessment tool for risk of bias mainly included Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (22.7%), A risk-of-bias model (Reeves,Deeks, Higgins & Wells) (3.3%), EPOC ROB Tool (2.7%).
Conclusions: Campbell reviews provide new ideas for the development of evidence-based practice, especially in developing countries.