use of modern, best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. It integrates the clinical experience and patient values with the best available research It aims to increase the use of high quality clinical research in clinical decision making Acta Informatica Medica’2008 3
been the development of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, methods by which researchers identify multiple studies on a topic, separate the best ones and then critically analyze them to come up with a summary of the best available evidence. Acta Informatica Medica’2008 4
Identify the best evidence with which to answer these questions 3. Appraise the evidence critically: assess its validity and usefulness 4. Implement the results of this appraisal in software engineering practice 5. Evaluate the performance of this implementation The 5 Steps of Evidence-Based Practice 8
Identify the best evidence with which to answer these questions 3. Appraise the evidence critically: assess its validity and usefulness 4. Implement the results of this appraisal in software engineering practice 5. Evaluate the performance of this implementation The 5 Steps of Evidence-Based Practice }Systematic Literature Reviews (SRs) 9
Identify the best evidence with which to answer these questions 3. Appraise the evidence critically: assess its validity and usefulness 4. Implement the results of this appraisal in software engineering practice 5. Evaluate the performance of this implementation The 5 Steps of Evidence-Based Practice }Systematic Literature Reviews (SRs) 12
Identify the best evidence with which to answer these questions 3. Appraise the evidence critically: assess its validity and usefulness 4. Implement the results of this appraisal in software engineering practice 5. Evaluate the performance of this implementation The 5 Steps of Evidence-Based Practice }Systematic Literature Reviews (SRs) 16
narrow question 18 Are time consuming they usually require between 6 months and 2 years to complete (1,139 hours, on average) Policymakers often require access to contextualized resources that address a broader scope of scientific evidence quickly On the other hand…
reviews were conducted in the last 3 years “Rapid reviews simplify the process of SRs to produce information in a timely manner” “[Briefings] translates existing SRs into actionable messages in the form of short accessible briefings”
Original The effectiveness of pair programing: A meta-analysis Briefing The effectiveness of pair programming Template This briefing reports evidence on <GOAL> based on scientific evidence from a systematic review. Briefing This briefing reports evidence on the effectiveness of pair programming around quality duration and effort based on scientific evidence from a systematic review.
Research findings: Original The effectiveness of pair programing: A meta-analysis Briefing The effectiveness of pair programming Template This briefing reports evidence on <GOAL> based on scientific evidence from a systematic review. Briefing This briefing reports evidence on the effectiveness of pair programming around quality duration and effort based on scientific evidence from a systematic review. Finding 1 Pairing up of individuals seems to elevate the junior pairs up to near senior pair performance Finding 2 If you do not know the seniority or skill levels of your programmers, but do have a feeling for task complexity, then employ pair programing either when task complexity is low and time is of the essence, or when task complexity is high and correctness if important
similar are more likely to be organized together Proximity: closer elements are more likely to be perceived as a group Continuation: elements will be grouped as a whole if they are co- linear Unity: elements that have a visual connection should belong to a uniform group
briefing 2. The goal of the briefing 3. The findings extracted from the original review 4. An informative box with general information 5. The reference to the original review 6. The logos of our research group and university
briefing 2. The goal of the briefing 3. The findings extracted from the original review 4. An informative box with general information 5. The reference to the original review 6. The logos of our research group and university The template of Evidence Briefings is licensed under CC-BY license!
we raffled a 100 USD Amazon card gift) Authority & Credibility (e.g, Ph.D., University professors) Liking (e.g., personalized emails) Scarcity: (e.g., we defined a deadline) Brevity (e.g., we asked closed questions as much as possible) Social Benefit (e.g., 1 USD for the Brazilian Red Cross)
we raffled a 100 USD Amazon card gift) Authority & Credibility (e.g, Ph.D., University professors) Liking (e.g., personalized emails) Scarcity: (e.g., we defined a deadline) Brevity (e.g., we asked closed questions as much as possible) Social Benefit (e.g., 1 USD for the Brazilian Red Cross)
available in the briefing we sent to you can answer your question on StackExchange? Q11. Why? Survey with Practitioners: Briefings’ Content “The question is too specific” “The question expected more than one answer” “The question touched a slightly different issue” “The briefing lacks details”
how important do you think is the research presented on the briefing? Survey with Practitioners: Briefings’ Content Q13. Why? “Agile is not a one size fits all methodology. To make it work you need to see what works for you and your team. [...] Making bold high level statistical statements about Agile software development will only hurt it where as it can shine in truly Agile organizations.”
gustavopinto
marcelosomers
reverentgeek
nwiizo
jakevdp
bethany
skipperchong
tammyeverts
mlcsv
konakalab
aarron
lauravandoore
thekraken
