Hall_2016 - Evidence based practice for the built environment: Can systematic reviews close the research - practice gap?

Basic Article Info:

Article key Hall_2016
Title Evidence based practice for the built environment: Can systematic reviews close the research - practice gap?
Year 2017
Review type systematic review
Main topic Performing systematic reviews for built environment research
Subjects area(s) Buildings, construction and facilities
Built environment scale Building system
Application(s) Practice, Design, Evaluation
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start 1995
Study focus end 2016
Search string "(office OR "commercial building" OR "non-residential building" OR building OR "commercial office" OR workplace OR workstation) AND (energy or "energy efficien*" OR "low carbon" OR green OR sustainab*) AND (HVAC OR heating OR cooling OR ventilat* OR “air-condition*”)" "(office OR "commercial building" OR "non-residential building" OR building OR "commercial office" OR workplace OR workstation) AND (energy OR "energy efficien*" OR "low carbon" OR green OR sustainab*) AND (comfort* OR satisfaction OR health OR wellbeing OR productivity OR wellness) AND (HVAC OR heating OR cooling OR ventilat* OR “air-condition*”) OR “natural ventilat*”) NOT school NOT hospital NOT residential NOT house"
No. of original sources not mentioned
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
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
Proquest Online Database ProQuest is committed to empowering researchers and librarians around the world. Its innovative information content and technologies increase the productivity of students, scholars, professionals and the libraries that serve them. Through partnerships with content holders, ProQuest preserves rich, vast and varied information – whether historical archives or today’s scientific breakthroughs – and packages it with digital technologies that enhance its discovery, sharing and management. For academic, corporate, government, school and public libraries, as well as professional researchers, ProQuest provides services that enable strategic acquisition, management and discovery of information collections. http://www.proquest.com/
Keywords used in search control optimatization, daylight control, daylight linked systems, daylighting systems, energy efficient lighting, lighting control strategies, lighting controls, thermal protection, thermally autonomous buildings, thermally manageable

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Samantha Hall* Samantha.hall@unsw.edu.au School of Built Environment, The University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Australia
Philip Oldfield School of Built Environment, The University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Australia
Benjamin J. Mullins Occupation and Environment, School of Public Health, Curtin University Bentley WA 6102 Australia Australia
Brett Pollard Hassell Sydney NSW 2000 Australia Australia
Christian Criado-Perez Australian Business School, The University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Australia

 

Funding

Funding sources
Funding source Address Country Funded year Comments
CRC for Low Carbon Living Room 202-207, Level 2, Tyree Energy Technologies Building UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Australia


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2017-05-23
Edition
Issue
Journal Procedia Engineering
Pagination 912-924
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Elsevier
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 180
Website owner
Copyrights of article Elsevier Ltd.
Licences of article Open Access:
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.341


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 =”No” = no explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. 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
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 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. C this is a methodological paper, testing feasibility of the SR approach, full SR was not performed
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. rapid review 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? high this is a methodological paper, testing feasibility of the SR approach, full SR was not performed