Systematic Reviews on Human–Animal Interaction Topics: A Look at Reporting Practices

References

• Aggarwal, V., Singla, M., Gupta, A., Mehta, N., & Kumar, U. (2021). How to write systematic review and meta-analysis. Endodontology, 33(2), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.4103/endo.endo_86_21
   Google Scholar
• Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z. (2020). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Joanna Briggs Institute. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
   Google Scholar
• Beck, A. M., & Martin, F. (2008). Current human–animal bond course offerings in veterinary schools. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 35(4), 483–486. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.35.4.483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell Collaboration. (2014). Campbell collaboration systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines, version 1.4. The Campbell Collaboration. https://doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.1
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane. (n.d.). Evidence synthesis—What is it and why do we need it? https://www.cochrane.org/news/evidence-synthesis-what-it-and-why-do-we-need-it
   Google Scholar
• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2018). CASP systematic review checklist. https://casp-uk.net/images/checklist/documents/CASP-Systematic-Review-Checklist/CASP-Systematic-Review-Checklist_2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dehkordi, A. H., Mazaheri, E., Ibrahim, H. A., Dalvand, S., & Gheshlagh, R. G. (2021). Systematic review and meta-analysis on quality of life in diabetic patients in Iran. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_327_19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMello, M. (2010). Teaching the animal: Human–animal studies across the disciplines. Lantern Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gartlehner, G., Affengruber, L., Titscher, V., Noel-Storr, A., Dooley, G., Ballarini, N., & König, F. (2020). Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: A crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 121, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannes, K. (2020). Evidence-based practice. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE research methods foundations (pp. 1–20). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036846490
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, F., Allers, K., Rombey, T., Helbach, J., Hoffmann, A., Mathes, T., & Pieper, D. (2021). Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000–2019. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 138, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, Z., Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Aromataris, E. (2019). The updated Joanna Briggs Institute model of evidence-based healthcare. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 17(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koffel, J. B. (2015). Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0125931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krnic Martinic, M., Pieper, D., Glatt, A., & Puljak, L. (2019). Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0855-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, B. A. (2020). Hierarchy of evidence pyramid. https://doi.org/10.26207/gr3e-6b54
   Google Scholar
• Mamikutty, R., Aly, A. S., & Marhazlinda, J. (2021). Selecting risk of bias tools for observational studies for a systematic review of anthropometric measurements and dental caries among children. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8623. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168623
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different? MEDLINE/PubMed Resources; U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/difference.html
   Google Scholar
• Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perestelo-Pérez, L. (2013). Standards on how to develop and report systematic reviews in psychology and health. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 13(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1697-2600(13)70007-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prill, R., Karlsson, J., Ayeni, O. R., & Becker, R. (2021). Author guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 29(9), 2739–2744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06631-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quigley, J. M., Thompson, J. C., Halfpenny, N. J., & Scott, D. A. (2019). Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—A review of recommended and commonly used tools. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 25(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rethlefsen, M. L., Farrell, A. M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L. C., & Brigham, T. J. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(6), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schöpfel, J. (2010). Towards a Prague definition of grey literature. In D. J. Farace (Ed.), Twelfth international conference on grey literature: Transparency in grey literature (pp. 11–26). TextRelease. https://greynet.org/images/GL12_S1P,_Sch_pfel.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., & Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358, j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., & Hempel, S. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W., Bühn, S., & Pieper, D. (2019). Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: A methodological systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yatcilla, J. K. (2021). A panorama of human–animal interactions research: Bibliometric analysis of HAI articles 1982–2018. Anthrozoös, 34(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1885139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S. W., Zhang, C., Li, S., Sun, F., Niu, Y., & Du, L. (2015). The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: A systematic review. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 8(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12141
   PubMedGoogle Scholar