Bigerna_2014 - The question of sustainability of green electricity policy intervention

Basic Article Info:

Article key Bigerna_2014
Title The question of sustainability of green electricity policy intervention
Year 2014
Review type meta-analysis
Main topic Sustainability of renewable energy sources
Subjects area(s) Energy, Policy, administration and planning
Built environment scale Global / Country / Region
Application(s) Policy making
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start 1992
Study focus end 2010
Search string not provided
No. of original sources 15
Synthesis method qualitative + quantitative
Quantitative map included no
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
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/
EBSCOhost Online Database EBSCO provides leading research databases for academic libraries, school libraries, public libraries, medical institutions, corporations, and military institutions. https://search.ebscohost.com
JSTOR Online Database JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources. https://www.jstor.org/
Keywords used in search

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Simona Bigerna* simona.bigerna@unipg.it Department of Economics, University of Perugia via A. Pascoli 21, 06123 Perugia, Italy Italy
Carlo Andrea Bollino carloandrea.bollino@unipg.it Department of Economics, University of Perugia via A. Pascoli 21, 06123 Perugia, Italy Italy
Paolo Polinori paolo.polinori@unipg.it Department of Economics, University of Perugia via A. Pascoli 21, 06123 Perugia, Italy Italy

 

Funding

Funding sources No funding sources recorded


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2014-08-19
Edition
Issue
Journal Sustainability
Pagination 5378-5400
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher MDPI
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 6
Website owner
Copyrights of article Authors
Licences of article Open Access:
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.3390/su6085378, ISSN: 2071-1050


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 =”No” = no explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. original empirical 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). 3+ databases, unpublished studies of unknown origin
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? 1 = “Yes” = ALL the following: Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described in detail. Table 5
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? 1 = “Yes” = The authors justified combining the data in a meta-analysis AND they used an appropriate technique to combine study results and adjusted for heterogeneity if present AND investigated the causes of any heterogeneity or adjusted for heterogeneity or confounding if present. log-linear meta-regression model
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? 0 =”No” = no assessment of the potential impact of RoB. not provided
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. meta-regression models
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? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = more than one online source but no supplementary sources or one online source and one supplementary source. Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. funnel plot
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. conflict of interests statement provided
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, no search details, no quality assesment of included studies, bias might be present
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. meta-analysis 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; included studies not quality assessed