Study Selection. The candidate screened all titles and abstracts in the electronic databases. The abstracts of potentially eligible articles were saved in Endnote. Bibliographic references from these articles were systematically searched. Eligible records then had a full text screening by two reviewers and were promoted to the next stage of the process by categorising as ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘maybe’. The next stage was to have a consensus meeting and to call in expert opinions as to whether any ‘maybe’ records should be included in the review.
Study Selection. Those papers that were identified through the peer-reviewed literature database search, a report generated including title and abstract for each paper. These papers were assessed by external reviewers and me. Papers that were deemed eligible and relevant were included for full-text review stage. At this stage, external reviewer and I screened full-text papers to make final decision whether included papers met the inclusion criteria.
Study Selection. An independent reviewer (ZL) performed the systematic electronic searches in all the databases. ZL also identified and removed the duplicate studies. The independent reviewer then carried out the screening of the titles/abstracts and identifying the full text articles. One author [JMacD] randomly reviewed 50% of the articles and discussed the disagreement with the first author to determine the final article eligibility.
Study Selection. Formatted: Right: 0.63 cm The initial search from all four databases identified 2707 articles. Six additional studies were identified via manual searching and increased the total number of potentially eligible studies to 2713. Removal of duplicate records reduced the number of potentially relevant studies to 2023. The resulting studies were evaluated according to the inclusion criteria described in section 2.3 above. This process was completed in four phases (see Figure 1 for a pictorial summary of the study selection process). Phase 1 involved a preliminary screening of titles to exclude studies those that had no apparent relevance to the aims of the current review (e.g. they had no reference to TBI and/or awareness). Phase 2 involved screening the abstracts of all studies identified as potentially relevant following Phase 1. Phase 3 involved full text screening of the remaining studies. Studies were excluded with reference to the described eligibility criteria. Phase 4 involved comparing summarised key information from each of the remaining studies against the eligibility criteria and resulted in 34 studies deemed eligible for review.
Study Selection. The candidate and her colleagues (P.C., F.C., V.C., S.A., J.L., O.O., S.D., A.H., P.S., E.E.) were paired and then assigned responsibility for performing literature searches for the NIMH RDoC subdomains. The pair of authors conducted final screening and assessment for eligibility. When there was uncertainty, criteria compliance was agreed by with referral to the whole team (see Table 2 for study selection from identification to inclusion). The bibliographies from all the relevant reviews were inspected for additional studies which were not yielded by the initial literature search. Relevant studies either in preparation or those at the submission stage which were authored by our research group were inspected. The corresponding authors were contacted to obtain the required data which were not reported in the article. Some studies were included more than once in the synthesis of the literature as their test battery spanned more than one construct/subconstruct. Table 2. Study selection for meta-analysis of social processing in eating disorders Study Selection for Systems for Social Processes (n) Identification Excluded based on abstract Full-text articles screened Inclusion (1) Affiliation & Attachment 411 248 163 36 (2) Social Communication (2a) Reception of Facial Communication 133 100 33 13 (2b) Production of Facial Communication 30 28 3 3 (2c) Reception of Non- Facial Communication 473 452 23 3 (2d) Production of Non- Facial Communication 185 165 16 3
Study Selection. Eligibility assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. Titles and abstracts of articles identified from the systematic search were examined in relation to the relevance to the topic and duplicates were removed at this stage. The full texts of articles were then screened to identify whether or not they were eligible, and those not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded at this stage, leaving a final number of studies for inclusion in the systematic review. Data Collection Process: Data were extracted from the reports by two independent reviewers (KB and KA) to minimise reporting bias. Authors of the included articles were contacted directly if questions arose about the reported data. A search protocol data sheet was developed and used to extract all important and relevant information from the studies. Data Items: Detailed information was extracted from each of the studies, primarily on the characteristics of the participants (such as gender, age, and ethnicity, if available), the characteristics of the intervention (including format, type, presentation and delivery mode of the risk information) and comparison groups, and the types of outcome measures assessed (including screening outcomes and psychological predictors of screening outcomes).
Study Selection. Eligibility assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers (KB and KA) were resolved in a discussion. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of study selection. The systematic search revealed a total of 7408 articles. Each article title and abstract was examined in relation to the relevance to the topic, which resulted in a list of 107 articles retained at this stage. The full texts of articles were then read to identify whether or not they met the inclusion criteria, and 86 studies were excluded at this stage, with a total of 21 articles being chosen as relevant. 7408 records identified through database searching 3 additional records identified through other sources Figure 1 - PRISMA flow diagram 21 studies included in qualitative synthesis INCLUDED 89 full‐text articles excluded 12 = not an RCT 37 = not individualised risk 5 = not looking at screening 7 = protocol/ conference abstract 28 = pre-2006 110 full‐text articles assessed for eligibility ELIGIBILITY 5948 records excluded 6058 records screened SCREENING 6058 records after duplicates removed IDENTIFICATION
Study Selection. Figure 1 illustrated the selection of relevant studies. The literature search yielded 3250 articles. Removal of duplicates and screening of the title and abstract left 54 studies for full text screening. Twenty-four papers did not meet the eligibility criteria (fourteen papers used a maltreatment variable that included incidents that occurred when the participant was over the age of 18, seven studies did not use a prison- incarcerated population, two papers did not include inferential statistics regarding the maltreatment-psychopathology relationship, and one study had insufficient information about the participants to determine whether the study met eligibility criteria). Web of Science 607 PsychArticles 1436 PsychInfo 1016 Social Policy and Practice 191 Total search 3250 Duplicates removed 1338 Titles screened 1912 Studies removed 1840 Abstracts screened 72 Full text reading 54 Studies removed 18 Studies included in systematic review 30 Studies excluded:
Study Selection. An independent reviewer (ZL) performed the systematic electronic searches in all the databases. ZL also identified and removed the duplicate studies. The independent reviewer then carried out the screening of the titles/abstracts and identifying the full text articles. One author [JMacD] randomly reviewed 50% of the articles and discussed the disagreement with the first author to determine the final article eligibility. Acceptable Xxxxx Solutions We included studies that applied the Xxxxx model to evaluate the structural validity of NDI. The score transformation algorithm was obtained if the revised version achieved an acceptable level of model fit identified by the eligibility criteria. According to assumptions of the Xxxxx theory, we defined the acceptable fit of the Xxxxx model as follows:
Study Selection. The initial search returned 3,588 studies, with 10 studies added through a grey literature search, and 16 after searching reference lists. After removing duplicates, 2,385 studies were screened and 25 met the inclusion criteria. Figure 3 provides a breakdown of the screening process.
