Syndicate content

systematic reviews

If you want your study included in a systematic review, this is what you should report

David Evans's picture

This post is co-authored with Birte Snilstveit of 3ie
Impact evaluation evidence continues to accumulate, and policy makers need to understand the range of evidence, not just individual studies. Across all sectors of international development, systematic reviews and meta-analysis (the statistical analysis used in many systematic reviews) are increasingly used to synthesize the evidence on the effects of programmes. These reviews aim to identify all available impact evaluations on a particular topic, critically appraise studies, extract detailed data on interventions, contexts, and results, and then synthesize these data to identify generalizable and context-specific findings about the effects of interventions. (We’ve both worked on this, see here and here.)
But as anyone who has ever attempted to do a systematic review will know, getting key information from included studies can often be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Sometimes this is because the information is simply not provided, and other times it is because of unclear reporting. As a result, researchers spend a long time trying to get the necessary data, often contacting authors to request more details. Often the authors themselves have trouble tracking down some additional statistic from a study they wrote years ago. In some cases, study results can simply not be included in reviews because of a lack of information.

What works for improving welfare in agriculture: version 0.001

Markus Goldstein's picture
Two years ago, Mike O’Sullivan and I did a post on gender and agriculture.  One of the things we pointed out was that there was a pretty dismal lack of evidence on interventions in agriculture (forget gender).  So I was pretty excited when the recent Campbell Collaboration systematic review on “the effects of training, innovation and new technology on African smallholder farmers’ economic outcomes and food

227 studies later, what actually works to improve learning in developing countries?

David Evans's picture
Yesterday we talked about some of the limitations in systematic reviews of educational research, and how many of the reviews have – on the face of them – varying recommendations. The main recommendations as to what works (principally drawn from the abstracts and introductions) are in the figure below.

Do the Poor Waste Transfers on Booze and Cigarettes? No

David Evans's picture
While discussing a cash transfer program, a senior government official in Nicaragua spoke for many when she worried that “husbands were waiting for wives to return in order to take the money and spend it on alcohol” [Moore 2009]. This concern around cash transfer programs comes up again and again. For at least some of the poor, some will say, “Isn’t that how they became poor in the first place?”