Only 31 relevant articles published from December 2002 to September 2014, including 21 cross-sectional or case-control design studies and 10 clinical intervention studies, were finally selected after a title or abstract review and a full text review according to the exclusion and inclusion criteria.
If either reviewer deemed a systematic review or meta-analysis potentially eligible based on a review of the title and abstract, we carried out a full text review of the systematic review or meta-analysis.
I've included a traditional text review as well, in case you don't want to look at my smirking video-face.
Of the 8072 articles identified using the electronic search, 145 were deemed potentially relevant on the basis of title and abstract and the full papers were retrieved for a full text review.
Whenever an abstract contained insufficient information for evaluating it against the PICOS criteria, the article was automatically passed to the next stage for a full text review.
Prior to the full text review, a pilot assessment was undertaken by all reviewers of 4%% of included studies, discrepancies were resolved, and changes were made to the data extraction form.
Prior to the full text review, a pilot review was undertaken by all reviewers on 4%% of included studies, discrepancies were resolved, and changes were made to the review form (e.g., addition of coding for: 'theoretical paradigm', 'practical strategies', and 'implications', and amendments to the approach to coding the methods used to identify high performers).
For the full text review, a standardized form was filled independently by two reviewers (SR, DT).
And once I've seen a movie trailer, maybe I want to sample a few text reviews, too.
