Vous trouverez ici les ressources complémentaires partagées dans les présentations et réorganisées par catégories. Les ressources principales se trouvent dans le chapitre « Boîte à outils ».

• Toutes les disciplines
  • Equator Network
• Psychologie
  • Journal Article Reporting Standards – Quantitative Research Design (JARS–Quant)
• Sciences sociales
  • Campbell Standards (agit aussi comme guide méthodologique)
    • Aloe, A. M., Dewidar, O., Hennessy, E. A., Pigott, T., Stewart, G., Welch, V., Wilson, D. B., & Campbell MECCIR Working Group. (2024). Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell’s Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, e1445. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1445 
    • Checklist
• Sciences de l’environnement
  • Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES)
• Épidémiologie
  • Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)
• Sciences de l’environnement
  • Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE), Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management (agit aussi comme guide méthodologique)
• Sciences de la santé
  • Cochrane, Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) (agit aussi comme guide méthodologique)

• Sciences sociales
  • Campbell Standards (agit aussi comme guide de documentation)
    • Aloe, A. M., Dewidar, O., Hennessy, E. A., Pigott, T., Stewart, G., Welch, V., Wilson, D. B., & Campbell MECCIR Working Group. (2024). Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell’s Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, e1445. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1445 
    • Checklist
    • Section sur le protocole
• Sciences de la santé
  • Cochrane, Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) (agit aussi comme guide de documentation)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
• Sciences de l’environnement
  • Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE), Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management (agit aussi comme guide de documentation)

• Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Moore G, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jan 25;4(Suppl 1):e001107. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001107
• Campbell, F., Tricco, A. C., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Saran, A., Sutton, A., … & Khalil, H. (2023). Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different—the “Big Picture” review family. Systematic reviews, 12(1), 45.
• lliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., Salanti, G., Meerpohl, J., MacLehose, H., Hilton, J., Tovey, D., Shemilt, I., Thomas, J., Agoritsas, T., Hilton, J., Perron, C., Akl, E., Hodder, R., Pestridge, C., … Pearson, L. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010
• Page M J, Moher D, Bossuyt P M, Boutron I, Hoffmann T C, Mulrow C D et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021; 372 :n160 doi:10.1136/bmj.n160 
• Page MJ, Moher D, McKenzie JE. Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists. Res Syn Meth. 2022; 13(2): 156–163. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1535
• Peters et al., (2022). Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20(4), 953-968. doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00242
• Rethlefsen, M. L., & Page, M. J. (2022). PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: common questions on tracking records and the flow diagram. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 110(2), 253.
• Saran, A., & White, H. (2018). Evidence and gap maps: A comparison of different approaches. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.2
• Tod, D., Booth, A., & Smith, B. (2022). Critical appraisal. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15(1), 52-72.
• Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6

Divers

• Choix d’une méthodologie de synthèse
  • Right Review
  • Université de Montréal, Arbre de décision
• Data collection form template développé par Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2.0 Pilot 2019
• Développement d’une question de recherche : Guiding Questions for Research Question Development
• Evidence Synthesis Hackathon. Grey Literature Reporter
• Ghezzi-Kopel K. Gray Literature Resources for Agriculture Evidence Syntheses.
• Power Thesaurus : https://www.powerthesaurus.org/
• Regroupement de plusieurs outils qui ont différentes utilités
  • Knowledge Translation Program, https://knowledgetranslation.net/category/method/knowledge-synthesis/ 
• SR Toolbox: http://systematicreviewtools.com/

Plateformes pour effectuer des synthèses

• Covidence: https://www.covidence.org/
• DistillerSR : https://www.distillersr.com/products/distillersr-systematic-review-software
• EPPI-Reviewer: eppi.ioe.ac.uk/CMS/Default.aspx
• JBI Sumari : https://sumari.jbi.global/
• Rayyan: https://www.rayyan.ai/
• RevMan (analyse des données) : https://www.cochrane.org/learn/courses-and-resources/software
• SRDR+ : https://srdrplus.ahrq.gov/ 
• sysrev: sysrev.com

Automatisation et intelligence artificielle

• Askin, N., Ostapyk, T., & Epp, C. (2025, June 6). Filtering Failure: use of exp animals/ not humans.sh with automated indexing. osf.io/d4mz5
• Bibliothèque de l’Université Laval. Apprendre à effectuer des recherches documentaires. https://www.bibl.ulaval.ca/disciplines/psychologie/je-veux/apprendre-a-effectuer-des-recherches-documentaires
• Bibliothèque de l’Université Laval. guide de planification et de recherche de littérature grise
• Bibliothèque de l’Université Laval. grille de documentation de la littérature grise
• Cooper, C., Dawson, S., Peters, J., Varley‐Campbell, J., Cockcroft, E., Hendon, J., & Churchill, R. (2018). Revisiting the need for a literature search narrative : A brief methodological note. Research synthesis methods, 9(3), 361‑365. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1315
• Cooper, C., Premji, Z., Yavuz, C., & Engelbert, M. (2025). Should we adopt the case report format to report challenges in complicated evidence synthesis? A proposal and illustration of a case report of a complex search strategy for humanitarian interventions. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, 3(3), e70021. https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70021
• MacDonald, H., Comer, C., Foster, M., Labelle, P. R., Marsalis, S., Nyhan, K., Premji, Z., Rogers, M., Splenda, R., Stansfield, C., & Young, S. (2024). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, e1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1433
• McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016). PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, 40–46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
• MeSH bilingue. https://mesh.inserm.fr/ 
• Taubman Library Talks. Language matters: Handling tough terms in systematic searching [February 29, 2024, 1-2:30pm EST]. https://guides.lib.umich.edu/TaubmanTalks/ToughTerms
• Termium Plus. https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2alpha/alpha-fra.html?lang=fra&index=alt
• Townsend, W. et al. (2022). Addressing antiquated, non-standard, exclusionary, and potentially offensive terms in evidence syntheses and systematic searches. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/items/9d95c8ab-47eb-42ab-9b2b-137eecc98ac5
• University of Toronto Libraries. Searching the Literature: A Guide to Comprehensive Searching in the Health Sciences. Precision vs. Sensitivity – Key to Effective Searching. https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=577919&p=4304403 

Filtres de recherche et répertoire de concepts :

• BMI Search blocks
• CADTH
• Dalhousie University Libraries
• Répertoire de concepts de la FMD3S
• The ISG Search Filters Resource
• University of Alberta Library

Recherche de littérature grise

• Bonato, S. (2018). Searching the grey literature : a handbook for searching reports, working papers, and other unpublished research. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• CADTH. Matière grise.
• GreyNet International
• World Bank Group. The World Bank Open Knowledge Repository.

Exemple d’utilisation de la grille PRESS

• Gabarit vierge (Google Sheet)
• Gabarit complété (Google Sheet)

• Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. PROCEED.
• JBI. systematic review register
• Systematic reviews for animals & food (SYREAF). Protocols.
• Van den Akker, O., Peters, G.Y., Bakker, C., Carlsson, R., Coles, N. A., Corker, K.S.,…Yeung, S. (2020). Inclusive Systematic Review Registration Form. doi: 10.31222/osf.io/3nbea

• Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• Littell, J.H. (2018), Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14: 1-21. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1
• Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Price, C., Aromataris, E., Stern, C., Stone, J. C., Barker, T. H., Godfrey, C. M., Clyne, B., Booth, A., Tricco, A. C., & Jordan, Z. (2023). Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol. JBI evidence synthesis, 21(3), 592–600. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00122

• Barrick, K., et Riegelman, A. (2021). Phrasing in reproducible search methodology: The consequences of straight and curly quotation marks. College & Research Libraries, 82(7), 978. doi:10.5860/crl.82.7.978
• Binghamton University Libraries. Literature Review and Evidence Synthesis. https://libraryguides.binghamton.edu/literaturereview/assignments
• Bollen, K., Cacioppo, J., Kaplan, R., Krosnick, J. A., et Olds, J. L. (2015). Social, behavioral, and economic sciences perspectives on robust and reliable science. Report of the Subcommittee on Replicability in Science Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences.
• Borah, R., Brown, A. W., Capers, P. L., & Kaiser, K. A. (2017). Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ open, 7(2), e012545.
• Bureau du droit d’auteur, Bibliothèque de l’Université Laval. Intelligence Artificielle. https://www.bda.ulaval.ca/intelligence-artificielle/ 
• https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016 
• Examples of Evidence Tables from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
• Faire le point sur une question de recherche précise avec la revue systématique. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJrf_hK7UZE
• Felizardo, de Souza, É. F., Napoleão, B. M., Vijaykumar, N. L., & Baldassarre, M. T. (2020). Secondary studies in the academic context: A systematic mapping and survey. The Journal of Systems and Software, 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.110734
• Gartlehner, G., Affengruber, L., Titscher, V., Noel-Storr, A., Dooley, G., Ballarini, N., et König, F. (2020). Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 121, 20-28.
• Haddaway, N. R., Callaghan, M. W., Collins, A. M., Lamb, W. F., Minx, J. C., Thomas, J., & John, D. (2020). On the use of computer‐assistance to facilitate systematic mapping. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1129
• (How) can AI-based automation tools assist with systematic searching? https://www.cochrane.org/events/how-can-ai-based-automation-tools-assist-systematic-searching#Part%202
• Jackson, J.L., Kuriyama, A. How Often Do Systematic Reviews Exclude Articles Not Published in English?. J GEN INTERN MED 34, 1388–1389 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04976-x
• Littell, J. H., & Gorman, D. M. (2022) The Campbell Collaboration’s systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not meet mandatory methodological standards BMC Systematic Reviews, 11:145, p. 2.
• Narrative Literature Review. (2017). In M. Allen, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n370
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-BBCSS-17-03/publication/25303
• Neimann Rasmussen, L., Montgomery, P. The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study. Syst Rev 7, 129 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0786-6
• Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Ellen, M., Klerings, I., Sfetcu, R., Riva, N., Mahmić-Kaknjo, M., Poulentzas, G., Martinez, P., Baladia, E., Ziganshina, L. E., Marqués, M. E., Aguilar, L., Kassianos, A. P., Frampton, G., Silva, A. G., Affengruber, L., Spjker, R., Thomas, J., Berg, R. C.,…Gartlehner, G. (2021). Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 139, 287–296. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019
• Parker, Robin M N, Leah M Boulos, Sarah Visintini, Krista Ritchie, et Jill Hayden. “Environmental Scan and Evaluation of Best Practices for Online Systematic Review Resources.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 106, no. 2 (April 2018): 208–18. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.241.
• Pieper, D., & Puljak, L. (2021). Language restrictions in systematic reviews should not be imposed in the search strategy but in the eligibility criteria if necessary. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 132, 146–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.12.027
• Responsible use of AI in evidence SynthEsis (RAISE) : recommendations and guidance. https://osf.io/fwaud/overview
• Rockliffe L. Including non-English language articles in systematic reviews: A reflection on processes for identifying low-cost sources of translation support. Res Syn Meth. 2022; 13(1): 2–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1508
• Sohn, R. (2022). Pain researchers lose three papers after Cochrane group questioned data. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/11/09/pain-researchers-lose-three-papers-after-cochrane-group-questioned-data/ 
• Stoll, C., Izadi, S., Fowler, S., Green, P., Suls, J., et Colditz, G. A. (2019). The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews. Research synthesis methods, 10(4), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1369
• University North Carolina, Systematic Reviews: Step 7: Extract Data from Included Studies. https://guides.lib.unc.edu/systematic-reviews/extract-data 
• University North Carolina, Systematic Review Automation Guide: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/automation
• Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W. et al. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 19, 132 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0
• Wafford, Q. E., & O’Dwyer, L. C. (2021). Adopting a toolkit to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process: A case report. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 109(4). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1221
• Walpole, S. C. (2019). Including papers in languages other than English in systematic reviews: important, feasible, yet often omitted. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 111, 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.004
• What to do about studies that met the criteria but have been retracted? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WH8WzZd0U2rNKwZU4BOanNpgU5jwo3B_XqhrlDE-VOU/edit?slide=id.ge737716829_0_73#slide=id.ge737716829_0_73 
• Wissinger CL. Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process? J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Apr;106(2):248-250. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.387

Extraction des données :

• Brown SA, Upchurch SL, Acton GJ. A framework for developing a coding scheme for meta-analysis. West J Nurs Res. 2003 Mar;25(2):205-22. doi: 10.1177/0193945902250038. PMID: 12666644.
• Brown SA, Martin EE, Garcia TJ, Winter MA, García AA, Brown A, Cuevas HE, Sumlin LL. Managing complex research datasets using electronic tools: a meta-analysis exemplar. Comput Inform Nurs. 2013 Jun;31(6):257-65. doi: 10.1097/NXN.0b013e318295e69c. PMID: 23681256; PMCID: PMC3703244.
• Elamin, M. B., Flynn, D. N., Bassler, D., Briel, M., Alonso-Coello, P., Karanicolas, P. J., Guyatt, G. H., Malaga, G., Furukawa, T. A., Kunz, R., Schünemann, H., Murad, M. H., Barbui, C., Cipriani, A., & Montori, V. M. (2009). Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(5), 506–510.
• Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin K; MUDS investigators. Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Res Synth Methods. 2018 Mar;9(1):2-12. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1277
• Pedder, H., Sarri, G., Keeney, E. et al. Data extraction for complex meta-analysis (DECiMAL) guide. Syst Rev 5, 212 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0368-4
• Taylor KS, Mahtani KR, Aronson JK. Summarising good practice guidelines for data extraction for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2021;26:88-90.

Gestion des données de recherche :

• Cornell University. Writing READMEs for Research Data.
• Cornell University, traduit et adapté par l’Université Laval. Gabarit de fichier ReadMe
• Gouvernement du Canada. Politique des trois organismes sur la gestion des données de recherche – Foire aux questions
• University of Calgary. Guide to the DMP Assistant Template for Systematic Review Projects.
• University of Leeds. Research data management explained. What is research data?

Registres de protocoles :

• Open Science Framework Registries
• Protocols.io

• ACFAS. Nos projets en soutien aux chercheur·se·s de la francophonie minoritaire. https://www.acfas.ca/francop%C4%A5onie-minoritaire#tude-et-donnes 
• Baudouin, A., Armoiry, X., & Dussart, C. (2017). L’évaluation médico-économique des stratégies thérapeutiques en milieu hospitalier : une revue systématique des travaux français. Annales Pharmaceutiques Françaises, 75(3), 227–235. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharma.2016.09.002 
• Bureau de la sous-ministre associée et directrice nationale de la protection de la jeunesse, Direction générale des services sociaux et Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. (2024) Incarner le changement. Rapport annuel de la directrice nationale de la protection de la jeunesse 2023-2024 (exemple de littérature grise)
• Campbell Systematic review. Author guideline. (exemple de politique de partage des données)
• Devie Falinda, Philip Lamey, Julie Burke. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of vitamin B in the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. PROSPERO 2024 Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42019135162
• Domínguez-Oliva, A., Mota-Rojas, D., Semendric, I., & Whittaker, A. L. (2023). The Impact of Vegan Diets on Indicators of Health in Dogs and Cats: A Systematic Review. Veterinary Sciences, 10(1), 52.
• Dorris, C., Winter, K., O’Hare, L., & Lwoga, E. T. (2021). PROTOCOL: A systematic review of mobile device use in the primary school classroom and its impact on pupil literacy and numeracy attainment. Campbell Systematic Reviews.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1155
• Exemples de carte des données et de lacunes (Evidence and gaps maps)
• Freeborn, Mardhani-Bayne, A., & Soetaert, C. (2023). Quality and educator dispositions for indigenous families in the urban early learning and child care context: a scoping review. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy., 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00108-5
• Ghezzi-Kopel K, Barrett CB, Hoddinott J, Tennant E, Upton J. (2019). The State of the Literature on Individual and Household Resilience: A Scoping Review. https://osf.io/5rgb7/overview
• Ghezzi-Kopel K. et al. (2020). Grey Literature_Search Strategies_Climate-resilient plants.txt. (exemple de documentation de recherche de littérature grise)
• Jones, K., Freijah, I., Brennan, S., et al. (2023). Interventions from pregnancy to two years after birth for parents experiencing complex post‐traumatic stress disorder and/or with childhood experience of maltreatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014874.pub2
• Koutsimani, P., Montgomery, A., & Georganta, K. (2019). The Relationship Between Burnout, Depression, and Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [Systematic Review]. Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 10 – 2019.
• Lowe, Tennent, C., Moodie, N., Guenther, J., & Burgess, C. (2021). School-based Indigenous cultural programs and their impact on Australian Indigenous students: a systematic review. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education., 49(1), 78–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2020.1843137
• Lysenstøen, C., Bøe, T., Hjetland, G. J., & Skogen, J. C. (2021). A Review of the Relationship Between Social Media Use and Online Prosocial Behavior Among Adolescents [Systematic Review]. Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 12 – 2021.
• Mercier, O., Fu, S. Y., Filler, R., Leclerc, A., Sampsel, K., Fournier, K., Walker, M., Wen, S. W., & Muldoon, K. (2024). Interventions for intimate partner violence during the perinatal period: A scoping review. Campbell systematic reviews, 20(3), e1423. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1423
• Naylor A, Kenny T-A, Harper S, et al. Inuit-defined determinants of food security in academic research focusing on Inuit Nunangat and Alaska: A scoping review protocol. Nutrition and Health. 2023;29(2):175-183. doi:10.1177/02601060221151091
• O’Leary, C., Coren, E., Gellen, S., Roberts, A., & Armitage, H. (2025). The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing problematic substance use, mental ill health, and housing instability in people experiencing homelessness in high income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell systematic reviews, 21(1), e70019. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70019
• Ouédraogo, DY., Sordello, R., Brugneaux, S. et al. What evidence exists on the impacts of chemicals arising from human activity on tropical reef-building corals? A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid 9, 18 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00203-x
• Préfontaine, I. & Lanovaz, M. J. (2017). Intervention psychosociale en autisme : examen de la portée de la littérature francophone. Revue de psychoéducation, 46(2), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.7202/1042252ar
• Rousseau DM, Beck D, Kim B, Splenda R, Young S. PROTOCOL: Does executive compensation predict publicly traded firms’ financial performance or inaccurate financial reporting? Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2019; 15:e1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1064
• Schneider LA, Carney PC, Eldermire ERB, Fiani N and Peralta S (2020) Levels of Evidence in Small Animal Dentistry and Oral Surgery Literature Over 40 Years. Front. Vet. Sci. 7:454. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00454 (exemple de recherche manuelle de la littérature)
• Service de police de la ville de Montréal. (2023). Rapport annuel. (Exemple de littérature grise).
• University of Michigan. Exemple de dépôt de données liées aux stratégies de recherche contenant un fichier ReadMe
• Warsaw, R. E., Jones, A., Rose, A. K., Newton-Fenner, A., Alshukri, S., & Gage, S. H. (2021). Mobile technology use and its association with executive functioning in healthy young adults: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 643542.

Exemples de formulaire d’extraction de données :

• • Sample form from NIHR Journals Library
  • Qualitative studies looking at male obesity management

• Anne Maxwell, J. (2025). Saying ‘yes’ and ‘no:’ developing and implementing a single-librarian social science evidence synthesis service. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2025.2466512
• ES Project Tracker Template
• Lee, Jennifer, K. Alix Hayden, Heather Ganshorn, et Helen Pethrick. “A Content Analysis of Systematic Review Online Library Guides.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 16, no. 1 (2021): 60–77. https://doi.org/10.18438/b8nd0s.
• Lipke, L., et Price, C. (2025). Rethinking Systematic Review Assignment Design in Graduate Health Science Education from Librarians’ Perspectives. Hypothesis: Research Journal for Health Information Professionals, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.18060/28463
• McGowan, Bethany Sheriese, Jason B Reed, et Jane Kinkus Yatcilla. “Graduate Student Confidence Following a For-Credit Systematic Review Course Pilot.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 109, no. 2 (July 20, 2021). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1073.
• McTavish, H., et Robertson, L. (2020). Canadian Academic Librarians as Online Teachers. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 18(6), 15–23.
• Poole, Karen. “A Flipped Classroom Approach to Teaching Search Techniques for Systematic Reviews to Encourage Active.” Journal of Information Literacy 15, no. 1 (2021): 68–83.
• Premji, Zahra, K. Alix Hayden, et Shauna Rutherford. “Teaching Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies in a Higher Education Setting: A Scoping Review of Face-to-Face Instructional Programs.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 16, no. 2 (2021): 111–44. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29895.
• Princeton University. Systematic review service proposal.
• Riegelman A. et Kocher M. (2018). For Your Enrichment: A Model for Developing and Implementing a Systematic Review Service for Disciplines outside of the Health Sciences
• Schmillen, H., & Campbell, P. (2024). Evidence synthesis library support: An assessment toolkit. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5EU36
• University of Calgary. Systematic Reviews Workshop Series – Lesson plans
• Webinaire. Airtable for Systematic Search Tracking at the University of Michigan – April 6, 2022
• Modèles de service :
  • Université de Sherbrooke
  • UQAR
  • Université Laval
  • Université d’Ottawa
  • University of Victoria
  • University of Pittsburgh
• Formulaires de demande de service :
  • Université de Montréal
  • Université Laval
  • Université d’Ottawa
  • Cornell University

Researcher Interview Series (Playlist)

• Working with a Librarian on Evidence Synthesis
• Exploring Different Review Methodologies
• Reproducibility and Transparent Methods
• Formulating a Research Question
• Guidelines and Reporting Standards
• Protocols and Registration
• Databases and Search Strategies
• Grey Literature
• Tools for Screening and Organization

Vidéos supplémentaires

• Introduction to Evidence Synthesis
• Registering a protocol in OSF
• Using Google Scholar in Evidence Synthesis
• Article screening tools demonstration
• Retractions
• Citation management
• Peer Review of Search Strategies (PRESS) for Evidence Synthesis
• Automating the Evidence Synthesis Process

• Advanced Research Skills: Conducting Literature and Systematic Reviews: https://pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca/graduatereviews/
• Johns Hopkins University. Introduction à l’examen systématique et à la méta-analyse. https://www.coursera.org/learn/systematic-review?action=enroll.  Note : Traduction automatique en français par Coursera
• The University of British Columbia Library. Worshops. https://guides.library.ubc.ca/KnowledgeSynthesis/workshops