Campbell Systematic Reviews最新文献

{"title":"Effectiveness of interventions for improving educational outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review","authors":"Xanthe Hunt, Ashrita Saran, Howard White, Hannah Kuper","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70016","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>People with disabilities are consistently falling behind in educational outcomes compared to their peers without disabilities, whether measured in terms of school enrolment, school completion, mean years of schooling, or literacy levels. These inequalities in education contribute to people with disabilities being less likely to achieve employment, or earn as much if they are employed, as people without disabilities. Evidence suggests that the gap in educational attainment for people with and without disabilities is greatest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Exclusion of people with disabilities from mainstream education, and low rates of participation in education of any kind, are important issues for global equity. Interventions which might have a positive impact include those that improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities, whether delivered in specialist or inclusive education settings. Such interventions involve a wide range of initiatives, from those focused on the individual level – such as teaching assistance to make mainstream classes more accessible to children with specific learning needs – to those which address policy or advocacy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objectives of this review were to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the nature of the interventions used to support education for people with disabilities in LMICs? (2) What is the size and quality of the evidence base of the effectiveness of interventions to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (3) What works to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (4) Which interventions appear to be most effective for different types of disability? (5) What are the barriers and facilitators to the improvement of educational outcomes for people with disabilities? (6) Is there evidence of cumulative effects of interventions?</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The search for studies followed two steps. Firstly, we conducted an electronic search of databases and sector-specific websites. Then, after initial screening, we examined the reference lists of all identified reviews and screened the cited studies for inclusion. We also conducted a forward search and an ancestral search. No restrictions in terms of date or format were placed on the search, but only English-language publications were eligible for inclusion.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In our review, we included studies on the ba","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143248699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Critical appraisal of methodological quality and completeness of reporting in Chinese social science systematic reviews with meta-analysis: A systematic review","authors":"Liping Guo, Sarah Miller, Wenjie Zhou, Zhipeng Wei, Junjie Ren, Xinyu Huang, Xin Xing, Howard White, Kehu Yang","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70014","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70014","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A systematic review is a type of literature review that uses rigorous methods to synthesize evidence from multiple studies on a specific topic. It is widely used in academia, including medical and social science research. Social science is an academic discipline that focuses on human behaviour and society. However, consensus regarding the standards and criteria for conducting and reporting systematic reviews in social science is lacking. Previous studies have found that the quality of systematic reviews in social science varies depending on the topic, database, and country.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study evaluates the completeness of reporting and methodological quality of intervention and non-intervention systematic reviews in social science in China. Additionally, we explore factors that may influence quality.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched three major Chinese electronic databases—CNKI, VIP, and Wangfang—for intervention and non-intervention reviews in social science published in Chinese journals from 1 January 2009 to 2 December 2022.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included intervention and non-intervention reviews; however, we excluded overviews, qualitative syntheses, integrative reviews, rapid reviews, and evidence syntheses/summaries. We also excluded meta-analyses that used advanced methods (e.g., cross-sectional, cumulative, Bayesian, structural equation, or network meta-analyses) or that focused on instrument validation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We extracted data using a coding form with publication information and study content characteristics. This study conducted pilot extraction and quality assessment with four authors and formal extraction and assessment with two groups of four authors each. PRISMA2020 and MOOSE were used to evaluate the reporting completeness of intervention and non-intervention reviews. AMSTAR-2 and DART tools were adopted to assess their methodological quality. We described the characteristics of the included reviews with frequencies and percentages. We used SPSS (version 26.0) to conduct a linear regression analysis and ANOVA to explore the factors that may influence both completeness of reporting and methodological quality.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Main Results</h3>\u0000","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11743190/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143013133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing problematic substance use, mental ill health, and housing instability in people experiencing homelessness in high income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Chris O'Leary, Esther Coren, Sandor Gellen, Anton Roberts, Harry Armitage","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70019","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70019","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Adults experiencing homelessness in high income countries often also face issues of problematic substance use, mental ill health, in addition to housing instability, so it is important to understand what interventions might help address these issues. While there is growing evidence of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for the general population, limited evidence exists specifically for those experiencing homelessness.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To summarise the existing evidence of whether psychosocial interventions work in reducing problematic substance use, mental ill health, and housing instability for adults experiencing homelessness in high income countries.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We used searches undertaken for the Homelessness Effectiveness Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) 5th edition. These were supplemented with hand searches of key journals and a call for evidence.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included all Randomised Control Trials and non-randomised studies where a comparison group was used and which examined psychosocial interventiONS for adults experiencing homelessness. ‘Psychosocial intervention’ is a broad term and covers several interventions, including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), contingency management, and motivational interviewing. We focused on studies that measure at least one of three outcomes: reduction in problematic substance use (alcohol and/or drugs); reduction in mental ill-health; reduction in housing instability.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>For included studies sourced from the EGM, we used the risk of bias assessments reported in the EGM. For included studies sourced from our own searches, we used the same tools used in the EGM to undertake our own assessments. We carried out meta-analysis where possible, and where not possible, presented included studies narratively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Findings</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included 26 papers covering 23 individual intervention studies. All of the included studies were from the United States. Of the 26 papers, 14 were assessed as having medium or high risk of bias, with main issues being lack of masking/blinding, lack of power calculations, and high levels of drop-out.</p>\u0000 </section>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11739802/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143013153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities","authors":"Pablo Madriaza, Ghayda Hassan, Sébastien Brouillette-Alarie, Aoudou Njingouo Mounchingam, Loïc Durocher-Corfa, Eugene Borokhovski, David Pickup, Sabrina Paillé","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70018","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70018","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> The Problem</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>People use social media platforms to chat, search, and share information, express their opinions, and connect with others. But these platforms also facilitate the posting of divisive, harmful, and hateful messages, targeting groups and individuals, based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. Hate content is not only a problem on the Internet, but also on traditional media, especially in places where the Internet is not widely available or in rural areas. Despite growing awareness of the harms that exposure to hate can cause, especially to victims, there is no clear consensus in the literature on what specific impacts this exposure, as bystanders, produces on individuals, groups, and the population at large. Most of the existing research has focused on analyzing the content and the extent of the problem. More research in this area is needed to develop better intervention programs that are adapted to the current reality of hate.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objective of this review is to synthesize the empirical evidence on how media exposure to hate affects or is associated with various outcomes for individuals and groups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Search Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Searches covered the period up to December 2021 to assess the impact of exposure to hate. The searches were performed using search terms across 20 databases, 51 related websites, the Google search engine, as well as other systematic reviews and related papers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This review included any correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental study that establishes an impact relationship and/or association between exposure to hate in online and traditional media and the resulting consequences on individuals or groups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fifty-five studies analyzing 101 effect sizes, classified into 43 different outcomes, were identified after the screening process. Initially, effect sizes were calculated based on the type of design and the statistics used in the studies, and then transformed into standardized mean differences. Each outcome was classified following an exhaustive review of the operational constructs present in the studies. These outcomes were grouped into five major dimensions: attitudinal changes, intergroup dynamics, interpersonal behaviors, political beliefs, and psyc","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736891/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143013216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"PROTOCOL: Non-criminal justice interventions for countering cognitive and behavioural radicalisation amongst children and adolescents: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation","authors":"James Lewis,&nbsp;Sarah Marsden,&nbsp;Anna Stefaniak,&nbsp;James Hewitt","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70020","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70020","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. (1) Examine whether secondary and tertiary interventions delivered outside of the criminal justice system are effective at countering the cognitive and behavioural radicalisation of children and adolescents by synthesising evidence relating to relevant primary and secondary outcomes of effectiveness. (2) Examine whether secondary and tertiary interventions delivered outside of the criminal justice system are being implemented as intended by synthesising evidence that captures how interventions are implemented, considering whether they are implemented as expected or in ways that align with their underlying logic. (3) Identify those implementation factors (facilitators and barriers) and moderators that impact how interventions working with children and adolescents are delivered.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734190/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143013150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protocol: The impact of integrated thematic instruction model on primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching: A protocol of systematic review","authors":"Klára Barancová,&nbsp;Jiří Kantor,&nbsp;Martina Fasnerová,&nbsp;Zuzana Svobodová,&nbsp;Miloslav Klugar","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70017","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70017","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This systematic review will examine the impact of the Integrated Thematic Instruction (ITI) on academic attainment and other possible outcomes of primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching. We will seek to answer the following research question: What impact does the ITI/HET teaching has on academic attainment and other possible outcomes of primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11663231/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142878166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessment of publication time in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A cross-sectional survey","authors":"Bei Pan,&nbsp;Long Ge,&nbsp;Xiaoman Wang,&nbsp;Ning Ma,&nbsp;Zhipeng Wei,&nbsp;Lai Honghao,&nbsp;Liangying Hou,&nbsp;Kehu Yang","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70011","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70011","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Delayed publication of systematic reviews increases the risk of presenting outdated data. To date, no studies have examined the time and review process from title registration and protocol publication to the final publication of Campbell systematic reviews. This study aims to examine the publication time from protocol to full review publication and the time gap between database searches and full review publication for Campbell systematic reviews. All Campbell systematic reviews in their first published version were included. We searched the Campbell systematic review journals on the Wiley Online Library website to identify all completed studies to date. We manually searched the table of contents of all Campbell systematic reviews to obtain the date of title registration from the journal's website. We used SPSS software to perform the statistical analysis. We used descriptive statistics to report publication times which were calculated stratified by characteristics, including year of review publication, type of reviews, number of authors, difference in authors between protocol and review, and Campbell Review Groups. Non-normal distributed data were reported as medians, interquartile range, and range, and normal distributed data will be reported as mean ± standard deviation. And we also visualized the overall publication time and the distribution of data. Approximately 18% of reviews were published within one to 2 years, faster than the aims set by Campbell systematic review policies and guidelines, which was 2 years. However, more than 40% of the reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, over 50% of included reviews were published with a time gap of more than 2 years after database searches. There was no significant difference between Campbell coordinating groups' median publication times and time gap from searches of databases to full review publication existed. However, the methods group only published one full review with almost a 3-year time gap from searches of databases to review publication. And there was a major difference between specific types of review. Systematic reviews had the longest median publication time of 2.4 years, whereas evidence and gap maps had the lowest median publication time of 13 months. Half of Campbell reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, the median time from protocol publication to review publication varied widely depending on the specific type of review.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11646485/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142830133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Campbell standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70013","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70013","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Aloe, A. M., Dewidar, O., Hennessy, E. A., Pigott, T., Stewart, G., Welch, V., Wilson, D. B., &amp; Campbell MECCIR Working Group. (2024) Campbell standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). <i>Campbell Systematic Reviews</i>, 20, e1445. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1445</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636630/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142819634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"PROTOCOL: Financial coaching for enhancing household finances and health/well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Julie Birkenmaier,&nbsp;Brandy R. Maynard,&nbsp;Hannah Shanks,&nbsp;Elizabeth Greer","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70012","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70012","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The primary objective of this review is to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the extent of financial coaching intervention research? (2) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial coaching embedded within community settings? (3) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial coaching embedded within healthcare settings? (4) What are the effects on health/well-being-related outcomes of financial coaching embedded within community settings? (5) What are the effects on health/well-being-related outcomes of financial coaching embedded within healthcare settings? (6) What study or intervention characteristics are associated with variation in the effects of financial coaching (i.e., design (RCT and QED), publication status (published or unpublished), dosage and duration of financial coaching intervention (continuous variable), age, financial coaching elements, and setting of intervention (healthcare or non-healthcare)?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632200/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142814472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protocol: Machine learning for selecting moderators in meta-analysis: A systematic review of methods and their applications, and an evaluation using data on tutoring interventions","authors":"Jens Dietrichson,&nbsp;Rasmus Klokker,&nbsp;Trine Filges,&nbsp;Elizabeth Bengtsen,&nbsp;Therese D. Pigott","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70009","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70009","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: The first objective is to find and describe machine and statistical learning (ML) methods designed for moderator meta-analysis. The second objective is to find and describe applications of such ML methods in moderator meta-analyses of health, medical, and social science interventions. These two parts of the meta-review will primarily involve a systematic review and will be conducted according to guidelines specified by the Campbell Collaboration (MECCIR guidelines). The outcomes will be a list of ML methods that are designed for moderator meta-analysis (first objective), and a description of how (some of) these methods have been applied in the health, medical, and social sciences (second objective). The third objective is to examine how the ML methods identified in the meta-review can help researchers formulate new hypotheses or select among existing ones, and compare the identified methods to one another and to regular meta-regression methods for moderator analysis. To compare the performance of different moderator meta-analysis methods, we will apply the methods to data on tutoring interventions from two systematic reviews of interventions to improve academic achievement for students with or at risk-of academic difficulties, and to an independent test sample of tutoring studies published after the search period in the two reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632158/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142814473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}