Grey Literature Search
Grey literature comprises documents and data not published through conventional commercial channels—including theses, government reports, clinical trial registries, conference abstracts, organizational policy documents, and working papers. Unlike journal articles, grey literature is not indexed in MEDLINE or Scopus and often lacks peer review. However, it is crucial for systematic reviews because it may contain null or negative findings that are less likely to be published (publication bias). Systematic grey literature searching is now a standard component of evidence synthesis and is recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, PRISMA, and other methodological guidelines.
Kilderegister
Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.
- Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In J. P. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.0.2, Chapter 13). The Cochrane Collaboration. · URL
- Wood, A. M., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F., Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Gluud, C. (2008). Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ, 336(7644), 601–605. · DOI 10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD
- Mahood, Q., Van Eerd, D., & Irvin, E. (2014). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 353–364. · DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1106
Kuraterte påstander
Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.
Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.
Relaterte metoder
Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.