Why do we need to do SWARs?
Systematic reviews must be conducted with methodological rigour and transparency because their results affect people’s care and therefore, their lives. Reviews also need to be seen to be right.
There remain uncertainties on many methodological aspects of how we plan, do and share evidence syntheses. Designing studies that evaluate evidence synthesis methodology is necessary to ensure that evidence synthesis is efficient and sustainable. Our ‘Studies Within A Review’ (SWAR) programme of research is an exciting way to evaluate alternative options when conducting a review process (e.g. study selection, data extraction, reporting the findings) to provide much-needed evidence about how these steps in the review processes can be improved. This has the potential to reduce research waste and improve the usefulness of systematic reviews.
• Lead applicants can be located in any Higher Education Institute in the world.
• However, collaboration with researchers currently resident in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland is essential
This call is now closed. Sign up to our newsletter to be notified of any future calls.
The processes by which reviews are planned, conducted, analysed and reported are informed by up-to-date research evidence rather than by convention. This maximises the likelihood that review processes are efficient, thereby minimising waste of time and other resources. Researchers should aim for comparable rigour to that with which reviews seek to answer questions about health and social care when seeking to inform decisions on how we ‘do’ reviews.
This funding scheme aims to support research teams to conduct a SWAR. Up to €6250 (inclusive of 25% overheads) is available per award.
| SWAR Title | Lead Applicant | Lead Institution | SWAR Registration |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | |||
| Exploring the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Systematic Review Abstract Screening: A Comparative Study of AI-aided and Manual Reviewing Methods | Selin Akari | Queens University Belfast | Link to Review |
| Investigation into the sensitivity and completeness of search strategies built using a text-mining word frequency tool (PubReMiner) compared to current best practice search strategy building: a study within a review (SWAR). | Andrew Dullea | Trinity College Dublin, HIQA | Link to Review |
| Exploring the use of stakeholder consultation exercises within scoping reviews: a qualitative interview study | Elaine Toomey | University of Galway | Link to Review |
| 2024 | |||
| Is automated data extraction using Elicit superior to human led data extraction? A comparative study using a systematic qualitative review. | Margaret McGrath | Univesity College Cork | |
| Exploring discrepancies between protocols and published scoping reviews: what differs and why? | Aoife O’Mahony | Univesity College Cork | |
| Training and Experience in Study Selection (TESS): A pilot randomised trial within a systematic review | Elayne Ahern | University of Limerick | |
| 2025 | |||
| Evaluating the usability of unified tools for critical appraisal within rapid reviews of intervention effects | Deborah Edwards | Cardiff University, Wales | |
| Evaluating “Co-Creation through Consultation” to engage knowledge users (KUs) in scoping reviews | Andrea Doyle | Royal College of Surgeons Ireland | |
| Meeting the need for a critical appraisal tool for realist reviews/synthesis | Ferdinand Mukumbang | University of Washington | |
| How can we best communicate the findings of systematic reviews to the public? | Sinead Duggan | Queens University Belfast | |
| The experiences of novice team members in evidence synthesis: Barriers, facilitators and opportunities for the future | Sarah Dillon | University of Limerick | |
| Artificial Intelligence in screening within rapid reviews: quantifying the impact on main findings, certainty of evidence and resources required. | Sarah Neil-Sztramko | McMaster, Canada | |
