ArticlePLoS medicine2009
Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions?
Article in PLoS medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 53 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
138 citing papers in PubMed, 53 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Is the Active Involvement of Family Caregivers in Adult Hospital Care Effective to Improve Patient Outcomes? A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Pooled it
- The effects of suspension-supported training on dynamic balance capacity in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis enhanced by XGBoost machine learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Discharge planning from hospital.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of process evaluations of interventions in trials investigating sedentary behaviour in adults.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Personally tailored activities for improving psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia in community settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluating the role of surgical sterilisation in canine rabies control: A systematic review of impact and outcomes.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Pooled it
- Social and Structural Determinants of Household Support for ART Adherence in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review .International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pay for performance for hospitals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Quality improvement strategies to prevent falls in older adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Age and ageing · 2019Pooled it
- Effects of community health worker interventions on socioeconomic inequities in maternal and newborn health in low-income and middle-income countries: a mixed-methods systematic review.BMJ global health · 2019Pooled it
- Sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- IMPNPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Personally tailored activities for improving psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia in long-term care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Tobacco cessation interventions for young people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- How Well Is Quality Improvement Described in the Perioperative Care Literature? A Systematic Review.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2016Pooled it
78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background to the debateThe UK Medical Research Council defines complex interventions as those comprising "a number of separate elements which seem essential to the proper functioning of the interventions although the 'active ingredient' of the intervention that is effective is difficult to specify." A typical example is specialist care on a stroke unit, which involves a wide range of health professionals delivering a variety of treatments. Michelle Campbell and colleagues have argued that there are "specific difficulties in defining, developing, documenting, and reproducing complex interventions that are subject to more variation than a drug". These difficulties are one of the reasons why it is challenging for researchers to systematically review complex interventions and synthesize data from separate studies. This PLoS Medicine Debate considers the challenges facing systematic reviewers and suggests several ways of addressing them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.