Systematic Reviews

• EndNote: citation management software that is $30 for University of Missouri faculty. There is no cost to students. With EndNote, you can: import references directly from multiple databases; organize and manage references; and format bibliographies and manuscripts.

• Covidence is a not-for-profit service dedicated to improving the use of evidence in healthcare decision-making. It's the primary screening and data extraction tool. Cochrane recommends it as the primary screening and extraction tool for systematic reviews.

• Cadima is a freely available online tool that supports the conduct of systematic reviews by guiding review authors through the evidence synthesis process. 

The University of Missouri has the SAS, SPSS, and STATA available through Software Anywhere. The following statistics software is also available for purchase:

• SAS - Available for $65 per license    
• SPSS - Available for $65 per license

The Social Sciences Statistics Center at Mizzou offers consultating services: http://sssc.missouri.edu/consulting.htm 

The Yale MeSH Analyzer is a tool you can use to compare the MeSH used for articles you have identified for your review already. It creates an analysis grid that helps easily identify the terms used for each article. Below is a how-to video:

• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
   
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Goetzsche PC, et al. (2009). The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

• Stroup DF et al. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - A Proposal for Reporting (pdf) JAMA 2000. 283(15):2008-2012.

• Booth A. "Brimful of STARLITE’’: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Oct; 94(4):421-429, e205. PMID: 17082834 (PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE)
• Sandelowski M. In response to a "Brimful of Starlite". J Med Libr Assoc. 2007 Jul; 95(3):233, author reply 233. PMID: 17641751 (PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE)

• Table 3 Elements of the STARLITE mnemonic
  Element	Explanatory notes
  S: Sampling strategy	Comprehensive: attempts to identify all relevant studies on the topic Selective: attempts to identify all relevant studies but only within specified limits Purposive: samples from specific disciplines, years, journals
  T: Type of studies	Fully reported: describes actual study types (e.g., grounded theory) or designs to be included Partially reported: uses an ‘‘umbrella’’ category such as ‘‘qualitative studies’’ without defining what this means
  A: Approaches	Approaches other than electronic subject searches (see below) Example: hand-searching Citation snowballing
  R: Range of years (start date–end date)	Fully reported: includes start and end dates with justification for time period chosen Partially reported: includes start and end dates but only determined available coverage of databases
  L: Limits	Functional limits that are applied for logistic reasons but do not alter the topic conceptually (e.g., human, English etc.)
  I: Inclusion and exclusions	Conceptual limitations that mediate the scope of the topic area (e.g., geographical location, setting, or a specific focus of study)
  T: Terms used	Fully present: example of a sample search strategy from one or more of the main databases Partially present: reports terminology used but without evidence of search syntax and operators
  E: Electronic sources	Reports databases used and, optimally, search platforms and vendors to assist in replication