Scepanovic_2017 - The role of context in residential energy interventions: A meta review

Basic Article Info:

Article key Scepanovic_2017
Title The role of context in residential energy interventions: A meta review
Year 2017
Review type systematic review
Main topic Effect of the context on the effectiveness of concrete residential energy interventions
Subjects area(s) Energy, Social and behavioural, Policy, administration and planning
Built environment scale Global / Country / Region
Application(s) Policy making, Practice, Human interactions and community engagement
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start not mentioned
Study focus end 2017
Search string not provided
No. of original sources 189
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included yes
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments 35 secondary research articles have been reviewed.

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Scopus Online Database Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature. With over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Web of Sciences Online Database Web of Science is an online subscription-based scientific citation indexing service originally produced by the Institute for Scientific Information, now maintained by Clarivate Analytics, that provides a comprehensive citation search. https://apps.webofknowledge.com
Google Scholar Online Database Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online academic journals and books, conference papers, theses and dissertations, preprints, abstracts, technical reports, and other scholarly literature, including court opinions and patents. https://scholar.google.com.au/
Wiley Online Library Online Database One of the largest and most authoritative collections of online journals, books, and research resources, covering life, health, social, and physical sciences. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
Keywords used in search behaviour change, community energy, DSR, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy intervention, energy reduction, intervention context, power grid intervention, renewable technology adoption, smart grid intervention

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Sanja Scepanovic* sanja.scepanovic@aalto.f Department of Computer Science, Aalto University PO Box 15400, FI-00076 Aalto, Espoo Finland
Martijn Warnier M.E.Warnier@tudelft.nl Section Systems Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology PO Box 5015, NL-2600GA Delft Netherlands
Jukka K. Nurminen jukka.k.nurminen@aalto.f Department of Computer Science, Aalto University PO Box 15400, FI-00076 Aalto, Espoo Finland
Jukka K. Nurminen jukka.k.nurminen@aalto.f VTT Technical Research Center of Finland PO Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Espoo Finland

 

Funding

Funding sources
Funding source Address Country Funded year Comments
CIVIS (http://www.civisproject.eu/)EU FP7 project Europe (Region) FP7-SMARTCITIES-2013, grant number: 608774


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale International
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2017-05-22
Edition
Issue May
Journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Pagination 1146-1168
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Elsevier Ltd.
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 77
Website owner
Copyrights of article Elsevier Ltd.
Licences of article
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.044, ISBN: 1364-0321, ISSN: 18790690


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. Only partial description vague 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. primary and secondary research studies
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or general search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g., language). 5 databases
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 "Acknowledgemets"
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; search details missing