A critical appraisal tool for systematic literature reviews in software engineering
---
paper_title: Research synthesis in software engineering: A tertiary study

paper_content:

ContextComparing and contrasting evidence from multiple studies is necessary to build knowledge and reach conclusions about the empirical support for a phenomenon. Therefore, research synthesis is at the center of the scientific enterprise in the software engineering discipline. ObjectiveThe objective of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of the challenges in synthesizing software engineering research and their implications for the progress of research and practice. MethodA tertiary study of journal articles and full proceedings papers from the inception of evidence-based software engineering was performed to assess the types and methods of research synthesis in systematic reviews in software engineering. ResultsAs many as half of the 49 reviews included in the study did not contain any synthesis. Of the studies that did contain synthesis, two thirds performed a narrative or a thematic synthesis. Only a few studies adequately demonstrated a robust, academic approach to research synthesis. ConclusionWe concluded that, despite the focus on systematic reviews, there is limited attention paid to research synthesis in software engineering. This trend needs to change and a repertoire of synthesis methods needs to be an integral part of systematic reviews to increase their significance and utility for research and practice.
---
paper_title: Towards a model to transfer knowledge from software engineering research to practice

paper_content:

Abstract Context: Many researchers argue that Software Engineering (SE) research lacks connection with practice. Objective: We propose a model aimed at supporting researchers to transfer knowledge to SE practice. Method: This model is built upon the foundation of Rapid Reviews and Evidence Briefings. These two key elements have been proven effective in other domains, such as medicine, and initial results suggest that they can play a prominent role in SE as well. Results: We discuss how to apply the model as well as possible challenges that might hinder its adoption. Conclusion: We believe that both SE practitioners and researchers could benefit from the proposed model. We expect replications and instantiations of the model in the future.
---
paper_title: Reliability of search in systematic reviews: towards a quality assessment framework for the automated-search strategy

paper_content:

Abstract Context The trust in systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to provide credible recommendations is critical for establishing evidence-based software engineering (EBSE) practice. The reliability of SLR as a method is not a given and largely depends on the rigor of the attempt to identify, appraise and aggregate evidence. Previous research, by comparing SLRs on the same topic, has identified search as one of the reasons for discrepancies in the included primary studies. This affects the reliability of an SLR, as the papers identified and included in it are likely to influence its conclusions. Objective We aim to propose a comprehensive evaluation checklist to assess the reliability of an automated-search strategy used in an SLR. Method Using a literature review, we identified guidelines for designing and reporting automated-search as a primary search strategy. Using the aggregated design, reporting and evaluation guidelines, we formulated a comprehensive evaluation checklist. The value of this checklist was demonstrated by assessing the reliability of search in 27 recent SLRs. Results Using the proposed evaluation checklist, several additional issues (not captured by the current evaluation checklist) related to the reliability of search in recent SLRs were identified. These issues severely limit the coverage of literature by the search and also the possibility to replicate it. Conclusion Instead of solely relying on expensive replications to assess the reliability of SLRs, this work provides means to objectively assess the likely reliability of a search-strategy used in an SLR. It highlights the often-assumed aspect of repeatability of search when using automated-search. Furthermore, by explicitly considering repeatability and consistency as sub-characteristics of a reliable search, it provides a more comprehensive evaluation checklist than the ones currently used in EBSE.
---
paper_title: Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A tertiary study

paper_content:

Context: In a previous study, we reported on a systematic literature review (SLR), based on a manual search of 13 journals and conferences undertaken in the period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2007. Objective: The aim of this on-going research is to provide an annotated catalogue of SLRs available to software engineering researchers and practitioners. This study updates our previous study using a broad automated search. Method: We performed a broad automated search to find SLRs published in the time period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2008. We contrast the number, quality and source of these SLRs with SLRs found in the original study. Results: Our broad search found an additional 35 SLRs corresponding to 33 unique studies. Of these papers, 17 appeared relevant to the undergraduate educational curriculum and 12 appeared of possible interest to practitioners. The number of SLRs being published is increasing. The quality of papers in conferences and workshops has improved as more researchers use SLR guidelines. Conclusion: SLRs appear to have gone past the stage of being used solely by innovators but cannot yet be considered a main stream software engineering research methodology. They are addressing a wide range of topics but still have limitations, such as often failing to assess primary study quality.
---
paper_title: Reporting Systematic Reviews: Some Lessons from a Tertiary Study

paper_content:

Abstract Context Many of the systematic reviews published in software engineering are related to research or methodological issues and hence are unlikely to be of direct benefit to practitioners or teachers. Those that are relevant to practice and teaching need to be presented in a form that makes their findings usable with minimum interpretation. Objective We have examined a sample of the many systematic reviews that have been published over a period of six years, in order to assess how well these are reported and identify useful lessons about how this might be done. Method We undertook a tertiary study, performing a systematic review of systematic reviews. Our study found 178 systematic reviews published in a set of major software engineering journals over the period 2010–2015. Of these, 37 provided recommendations or conclusions of relevance to education and/or practice and we used the DARE criteria as well as other attributes related to the systematic review process to analyse how well they were reported. Results We have derived a set of 12 ‘lessons’ that could help authors with reporting the outcomes of a systematic review in software engineering. We also provide an associated checklist for use by journal and conference referees. Conclusion There are several areas where better reporting is needed, including quality assessment, synthesis, and the procedures followed by the reviewers. Researchers, practitioners, teachers and journal referees would all benefit from better reporting of systematic reviews, both for clarity and also for establishing the provenance of any findings.
---
paper_title: Research synthesis in software engineering: A tertiary study

paper_content:

ContextComparing and contrasting evidence from multiple studies is necessary to build knowledge and reach conclusions about the empirical support for a phenomenon. Therefore, research synthesis is at the center of the scientific enterprise in the software engineering discipline. ObjectiveThe objective of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of the challenges in synthesizing software engineering research and their implications for the progress of research and practice. MethodA tertiary study of journal articles and full proceedings papers from the inception of evidence-based software engineering was performed to assess the types and methods of research synthesis in systematic reviews in software engineering. ResultsAs many as half of the 49 reviews included in the study did not contain any synthesis. Of the studies that did contain synthesis, two thirds performed a narrative or a thematic synthesis. Only a few studies adequately demonstrated a robust, academic approach to research synthesis. ConclusionWe concluded that, despite the focus on systematic reviews, there is limited attention paid to research synthesis in software engineering. This trend needs to change and a repertoire of synthesis methods needs to be an integral part of systematic reviews to increase their significance and utility for research and practice.
---
paper_title: Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

paper_content:

BackgroundOur objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus.MethodsA 37-item assessment tool was formed by combining 1) the enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 2) a checklist created by Sacks, and 3) three additional items recently judged to be of methodological importance. This tool was applied to 99 paper-based and 52 electronic systematic reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying components. The results were considered by methodological experts using a nominal group technique aimed at item reduction and design of an assessment tool with face and content validity.ResultsThe factor analysis identified 11 components. From each component, one item was selected by the nominal group. The resulting instrument was judged to have face and content validity.ConclusionA measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use.
---
paper_title: Reliability of search in systematic reviews: towards a quality assessment framework for the automated-search strategy

paper_content:

Abstract Context The trust in systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to provide credible recommendations is critical for establishing evidence-based software engineering (EBSE) practice. The reliability of SLR as a method is not a given and largely depends on the rigor of the attempt to identify, appraise and aggregate evidence. Previous research, by comparing SLRs on the same topic, has identified search as one of the reasons for discrepancies in the included primary studies. This affects the reliability of an SLR, as the papers identified and included in it are likely to influence its conclusions. Objective We aim to propose a comprehensive evaluation checklist to assess the reliability of an automated-search strategy used in an SLR. Method Using a literature review, we identified guidelines for designing and reporting automated-search as a primary search strategy. Using the aggregated design, reporting and evaluation guidelines, we formulated a comprehensive evaluation checklist. The value of this checklist was demonstrated by assessing the reliability of search in 27 recent SLRs. Results Using the proposed evaluation checklist, several additional issues (not captured by the current evaluation checklist) related to the reliability of search in recent SLRs were identified. These issues severely limit the coverage of literature by the search and also the possibility to replicate it. Conclusion Instead of solely relying on expensive replications to assess the reliability of SLRs, this work provides means to objectively assess the likely reliability of a search-strategy used in an SLR. It highlights the often-assumed aspect of repeatability of search when using automated-search. Furthermore, by explicitly considering repeatability and consistency as sub-characteristics of a reliable search, it provides a more comprehensive evaluation checklist than the ones currently used in EBSE.
---
paper_title: Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A tertiary study

paper_content:

Context: In a previous study, we reported on a systematic literature review (SLR), based on a manual search of 13 journals and conferences undertaken in the period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2007. Objective: The aim of this on-going research is to provide an annotated catalogue of SLRs available to software engineering researchers and practitioners. This study updates our previous study using a broad automated search. Method: We performed a broad automated search to find SLRs published in the time period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2008. We contrast the number, quality and source of these SLRs with SLRs found in the original study. Results: Our broad search found an additional 35 SLRs corresponding to 33 unique studies. Of these papers, 17 appeared relevant to the undergraduate educational curriculum and 12 appeared of possible interest to practitioners. The number of SLRs being published is increasing. The quality of papers in conferences and workshops has improved as more researchers use SLR guidelines. Conclusion: SLRs appear to have gone past the stage of being used solely by innovators but cannot yet be considered a main stream software engineering research methodology. They are addressing a wide range of topics but still have limitations, such as often failing to assess primary study quality.
---
paper_title: External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

paper_content:

Background ::: Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews. ::: ::: ::: Methodology ::: AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently. ::: ::: ::: Conclusions ::: The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were −0.19±1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 ‘AMSTAR points’. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.
---
paper_title: AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non‐randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

paper_content:

ABSTRACT 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.
---
paper_title: Reporting Systematic Reviews: Some Lessons from a Tertiary Study

paper_content:

Abstract Context Many of the systematic reviews published in software engineering are related to research or methodological issues and hence are unlikely to be of direct benefit to practitioners or teachers. Those that are relevant to practice and teaching need to be presented in a form that makes their findings usable with minimum interpretation. Objective We have examined a sample of the many systematic reviews that have been published over a period of six years, in order to assess how well these are reported and identify useful lessons about how this might be done. Method We undertook a tertiary study, performing a systematic review of systematic reviews. Our study found 178 systematic reviews published in a set of major software engineering journals over the period 2010–2015. Of these, 37 provided recommendations or conclusions of relevance to education and/or practice and we used the DARE criteria as well as other attributes related to the systematic review process to analyse how well they were reported. Results We have derived a set of 12 ‘lessons’ that could help authors with reporting the outcomes of a systematic review in software engineering. We also provide an associated checklist for use by journal and conference referees. Conclusion There are several areas where better reporting is needed, including quality assessment, synthesis, and the procedures followed by the reviewers. Researchers, practitioners, teachers and journal referees would all benefit from better reporting of systematic reviews, both for clarity and also for establishing the provenance of any findings.
---
paper_title: Research synthesis in software engineering: A tertiary study

paper_content:

ContextComparing and contrasting evidence from multiple studies is necessary to build knowledge and reach conclusions about the empirical support for a phenomenon. Therefore, research synthesis is at the center of the scientific enterprise in the software engineering discipline. ObjectiveThe objective of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of the challenges in synthesizing software engineering research and their implications for the progress of research and practice. MethodA tertiary study of journal articles and full proceedings papers from the inception of evidence-based software engineering was performed to assess the types and methods of research synthesis in systematic reviews in software engineering. ResultsAs many as half of the 49 reviews included in the study did not contain any synthesis. Of the studies that did contain synthesis, two thirds performed a narrative or a thematic synthesis. Only a few studies adequately demonstrated a robust, academic approach to research synthesis. ConclusionWe concluded that, despite the focus on systematic reviews, there is limited attention paid to research synthesis in software engineering. This trend needs to change and a repertoire of synthesis methods needs to be an integral part of systematic reviews to increase their significance and utility for research and practice.
---
paper_title: Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A tertiary study

paper_content:

Context: In a previous study, we reported on a systematic literature review (SLR), based on a manual search of 13 journals and conferences undertaken in the period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2007. Objective: The aim of this on-going research is to provide an annotated catalogue of SLRs available to software engineering researchers and practitioners. This study updates our previous study using a broad automated search. Method: We performed a broad automated search to find SLRs published in the time period 1st January 2004 to 30th June 2008. We contrast the number, quality and source of these SLRs with SLRs found in the original study. Results: Our broad search found an additional 35 SLRs corresponding to 33 unique studies. Of these papers, 17 appeared relevant to the undergraduate educational curriculum and 12 appeared of possible interest to practitioners. The number of SLRs being published is increasing. The quality of papers in conferences and workshops has improved as more researchers use SLR guidelines. Conclusion: SLRs appear to have gone past the stage of being used solely by innovators but cannot yet be considered a main stream software engineering research methodology. They are addressing a wide range of topics but still have limitations, such as often failing to assess primary study quality.
---
paper_title: AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non‐randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

paper_content:

ABSTRACT 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.
---
paper_title: Identifying, categorizing and mitigating threats to validity in software engineering secondary studies

paper_content:

Abstract Context Secondary studies are vulnerable to threats to validity. Although, mitigating these threats is crucial for the credibility of these studies, we currently lack a systematic approach to identify, categorize and mitigate threats to validity for secondary studies. Objective In this paper, we review the corpus of secondary studies, with the aim to identify: (a) the trend of reporting threats to validity, (b) the most common threats to validity and corresponding mitigation actions, and (c) possible categories in which threats to validity can be classified. Method To achieve this goal we employ the tertiary study research method that is used for synthesizing knowledge from existing secondary studies. In particular, we collected data from more than 100 studies, published until December 2016 in top quality software engineering venues (both journals and conference). Results Our results suggest that in recent years, secondary studies are more likely to report their threats to validity. However, the presentation of such threats is rather ad hoc, e.g., the same threat may be presented with a different name, or under a different category. To alleviate this problem, we propose a classification schema for reporting threats to validity and possible mitigation actions. Both the classification of threats and the associated mitigation actions have been validated by an empirical study, i.e., Delphi rounds with experts. Conclusion Based on the proposed schema, we provide a checklist, which authors of secondary studies can use for identifying and categorizing threats to validity and corresponding mitigation actions, while readers of secondary studies can use the checklist for assessing the validity of the reported results.
---
paper_title: Towards a model to transfer knowledge from software engineering research to practice

paper_content:

Abstract Context: Many researchers argue that Software Engineering (SE) research lacks connection with practice. Objective: We propose a model aimed at supporting researchers to transfer knowledge to SE practice. Method: This model is built upon the foundation of Rapid Reviews and Evidence Briefings. These two key elements have been proven effective in other domains, such as medicine, and initial results suggest that they can play a prominent role in SE as well. Results: We discuss how to apply the model as well as possible challenges that might hinder its adoption. Conclusion: We believe that both SE practitioners and researchers could benefit from the proposed model. We expect replications and instantiations of the model in the future.
---
paper_title: Reliability of search in systematic reviews: towards a quality assessment framework for the automated-search strategy

paper_content:

Abstract Context The trust in systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to provide credible recommendations is critical for establishing evidence-based software engineering (EBSE) practice. The reliability of SLR as a method is not a given and largely depends on the rigor of the attempt to identify, appraise and aggregate evidence. Previous research, by comparing SLRs on the same topic, has identified search as one of the reasons for discrepancies in the included primary studies. This affects the reliability of an SLR, as the papers identified and included in it are likely to influence its conclusions. Objective We aim to propose a comprehensive evaluation checklist to assess the reliability of an automated-search strategy used in an SLR. Method Using a literature review, we identified guidelines for designing and reporting automated-search as a primary search strategy. Using the aggregated design, reporting and evaluation guidelines, we formulated a comprehensive evaluation checklist. The value of this checklist was demonstrated by assessing the reliability of search in 27 recent SLRs. Results Using the proposed evaluation checklist, several additional issues (not captured by the current evaluation checklist) related to the reliability of search in recent SLRs were identified. These issues severely limit the coverage of literature by the search and also the possibility to replicate it. Conclusion Instead of solely relying on expensive replications to assess the reliability of SLRs, this work provides means to objectively assess the likely reliability of a search-strategy used in an SLR. It highlights the often-assumed aspect of repeatability of search when using automated-search. Furthermore, by explicitly considering repeatability and consistency as sub-characteristics of a reliable search, it provides a more comprehensive evaluation checklist than the ones currently used in EBSE.
---
paper_title: Reporting Systematic Reviews: Some Lessons from a Tertiary Study

paper_content:

Abstract Context Many of the systematic reviews published in software engineering are related to research or methodological issues and hence are unlikely to be of direct benefit to practitioners or teachers. Those that are relevant to practice and teaching need to be presented in a form that makes their findings usable with minimum interpretation. Objective We have examined a sample of the many systematic reviews that have been published over a period of six years, in order to assess how well these are reported and identify useful lessons about how this might be done. Method We undertook a tertiary study, performing a systematic review of systematic reviews. Our study found 178 systematic reviews published in a set of major software engineering journals over the period 2010–2015. Of these, 37 provided recommendations or conclusions of relevance to education and/or practice and we used the DARE criteria as well as other attributes related to the systematic review process to analyse how well they were reported. Results We have derived a set of 12 ‘lessons’ that could help authors with reporting the outcomes of a systematic review in software engineering. We also provide an associated checklist for use by journal and conference referees. Conclusion There are several areas where better reporting is needed, including quality assessment, synthesis, and the procedures followed by the reviewers. Researchers, practitioners, teachers and journal referees would all benefit from better reporting of systematic reviews, both for clarity and also for establishing the provenance of any findings.
---

Title: A Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering

Section 1: Introduction
Description 1: Provide an overview of the importance of systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in software engineering (SE) and the motivation behind developing a critical appraisal tool (CAT) for assessing SLR quality.

Section 2: Need for a CAT for the quality assessment of SLRs in SE
Description 2: Discuss the limitations of current appraisal tools in SE and the need for a more robust CAT to evaluate the quality of SLRs in the field.

Section 3: Candidate CAT for quality assessment of SLRs in SE
Description 3: Introduce the candidate tool AMSTAR-2 and explain its potential applicability, benefits, and relevance to SE.

Section 4: A proposed approach for adapting AMSTAR-2 for SE
Description 4: Outline the methodology for adapting AMSTAR-2 to SE, including community involvement and adjustments to the tool to make it suitable for SE systematic reviews.

Section 5: A proposed approach for validating CATSER
Description 5: Describe the planned validation process for the adapted tool (CATSER), focusing on inter-rater reliability and its effectiveness in identifying significant flaws in SLRs.

Section 6: Conclusion
Description 6: Summarize the importance of developing a robust CAT for SLRs in SE, the anticipated impact on research quality, and the key takeaways from the study.