Search

Your search keyword '"Aromataris, Edoardo"' showing total 529 results
Start Over Author "Aromataris, Edoardo" Publication Year Range Last 50 years
529 results on '"Aromataris, Edoardo"'

1. Umbrella reviews

Author

Aromataris, Edoardo, primary, Fernandez, Ritin, additional, Godfrey, Christina, additional, Holly, Cheryl, additional, Khalil, Hanan, additional, and Tungpunkom, Patraporn, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Systematic reviews of Aetiology and risk

Author

Moola, Sandeep, primary, Munn, Zachary, additional, Tufunaru, Catalin, additional, Aromataris, Edoardo, additional, Sears, Kim, additional, Sfetc, Raluca, additional, Currie, Marian, additional, Lisy, Karolina, additional, Qureshi, Rubab, additional, Mattis, Patrick, additional, and Mu, Pei-Fan, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. How Should We Handle Predatory Journals in Evidence Synthesis? A Descriptive Survey-Based Cross-Sectional Study of Evidence Synthesis Experts

Author

Barker, Timothy H., Pollock, Danielle, Stone, Jennifer C., Klugar, Miloslav, Scott, Anna M., Stern, Cindy, Wiechula, Rick, Shamseer, Larissa, Aromataris, Edoardo, Ross-White, Amanda, and Munn, Zachary

Abstract

Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences. Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%). While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement

Author

Tricco, Andrea C., Khalil, Hanan, Holly, Cheryl, Feyissa, Garumma, Godfrey, Christina, Evans, Catrin, Sawchuck, Diane, Sudhakar, Morankar, Asahngwa, Constantine, Stannard, Daphne, Abdulahi, Misra, Bonnano, Laura, Aromataris, Edoardo, McInerney, Patricia, Wilson, Rosemary, Pang, Dong, Wang, Zhiwen, Cardoso, Ana Filipa, Peters, Micah D.J., Marnie, Casey, Barker, Timothy, Pollock, Danielle, McArthur, Alexa, and Munn, Zachary

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study.

Author

Pollock, Danielle, Barker, Timothy Hugh, Stone, Jennifer C, Aromataris, Edoardo, Klugar, Miloslav, Scott, Anna M, Stern, Cindy, Ross‐White, Amanda, Whitehorn, Ashley, Wiechula, Rick, Shamseer, Larissa, and Munn, Zachary

Subjects
PREDATORY publishing, SCHOLARLY publishing, PUBLIC health research, QUALITATIVE research, EXPERT evidence
Abstract

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk

Author

Moola, Sandeep, primary, Munn, Zachary, additional, Tufanaru, Catalin, additional, Aromataris, Edoardo, additional, Sears, Kim, additional, Sfetic, Raluca, additional, Currie, Marian, additional, Lisy, Karolina, additional, Qureshi, Rubab, additional, Mattis, Patrick, additional, and Mu, Pei-Fan, additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Chapter 10: Umbrella reviews

Author

Aromataris, Edoardo, primary, Fernandez, Ritin, additional, Godfrey, Christina, additional, Holly, Cheryl, additional, Khalil, Hanan, additional, and Tungpunkom, Patraporn, additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. In reply to 'Bias assessment:mQ or RoB?'

Author

Barker, Timothy H., Aromataris, Edoardo, Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel, Sears, Kim, Klugar, Miloslav, Leonardi-Bee, Jo, and Munn, Zachary

Published
2023

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results