Liu_2017 - The development history and prospects of biomass-based insulation materials for buildings

Basic Article Info:

Article key Liu_2017
Title The development history and prospects of biomass-based insulation materials for buildings
Year 2017
Review type systematic review
Main topic Development of bio-insulations
Subjects area(s) Buildings, construction and facilities
Built environment scale Building system
Application(s) Product design, Innovation
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start 1974
Study focus end 2016
Search string not provided
No. of original sources 144
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included no
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Science Direct Online Database ScienceDirect is a website which provides subscription-based access to a large database of scientific and medical research. It hosts over 12 million pieces of content from 3,500 academic journals and 34,000 e-books. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
Keywords used in search bioinsulation, biomass, insulation

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
LiFang Liu* College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University 410082 Changsha, PR China China
HongQiang Li lhq@hnu.edu.cn College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University 410082 Changsha, PR China China
Andrea Lazzaretto Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padova 35131 Padova, Italy Italy
Giovanni Manente Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padova 35131 Padova, Italy Italy
ChunYi Tong College of biology, Hunan University 410082 Changsha, PR China China
QiBin Liu Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences 10080 Bejing, PR China China
NianPing Li linianping@126.com College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University 410082 Changsha, PR China China

 

Funding

Funding sources
Funding source Address Country Funded year Comments
National Natural Science Fund Hong Kong
Hunan Province Science Foundation Project China
China National Key R & D Program East 3rd Building Room 122, Zijin’gang Campus, Zhejiang University China


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2016-12-21
Edition
Issue
Journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Pagination 912-932
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Elsevier
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 69
Website owner
Copyrights of article Elsevier Ltd.
Licences of article Open Access:
Identifiers of article ISSN: 13640321


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. various types of studies for the scoping/mapping purpose
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0 =”No” = no information on search strategy, or not fulfilling criteria for “Yes” and “Partially”. 1 database and references
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 0 =”No” = no, or partial description of the included studies not provided
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. general discussion
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. Funding sources disclosed in "Acknowledgements"
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. B no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. systematic map N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? medium no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present