11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      PROTOCOL: Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty‐related outcomes in high‐income countries: A systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to appraise and synthesize the available quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high‐income countries, for the purpose of comparing the relative effectiveness of specific forms of GBI for alleviating poverty.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

              The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                arizv036@uottawa.ca
                Journal
                Campbell Syst Rev
                Campbell Syst Rev
                10.1002/(ISSN)1891-1803
                CL2
                Campbell Systematic Reviews
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1891-1803
                06 October 2022
                December 2022
                : 18
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1002/cl2.v18.4 )
                : e1281
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa Ottawa Canada
                [ 2 ] Methods Centre Bruyère Research Institute Ottawa Canada
                [ 3 ] MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit University of Glasgow Glasgow UK
                [ 4 ] Library University of Ottawa Ottawa Canada
                [ 5 ] School of Population Health, Faculty of Health Sciences Curtin University Bentley Australia
                [ 6 ] School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Canada
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Anita Rizvi, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

                Email: arizv036@ 123456uottawa.ca

                Article
                CL21281
                10.1002/cl2.1281
                9538708
                36908842
                b407beaa-dcea-4ca1-969c-1bb309a4f405
                © 2022 The Authors. Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 16, Words: 12854
                Categories
                Protocol
                Protocol
                Social Welfare
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                December 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.0 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2022

                Comments

                Comment on this article