ArticleBMC medical research methodology2011
Protocol--realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES).
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 20 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
135 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Realist review of nature-based interventions for men: understanding the contexts and mechanisms necessary for successful outcomes.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Economic impact of health insurance fraud, waste, and abuse: a literature review of direct and indirect costs and system sustainability.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Long-Term Use of Muscle Relaxant Medications for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Community mobilisation approaches to preventing adolescent multiple risk behaviour: a realist review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- OECD Case Studies of Integrated Regional and Strategic Impact Assessment: What Does 'Integration' Look Like in Practice?Environmental management · 2022Pooled it
- Developing core economic parameter sets for asthma studies: a realist review and an analytical framework.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Effects of interorganisational information technology networks on patient safety: a realist synthesis.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Family-Based Behavior Change Interventions on Obesity-Related Behavior Change in Children: A Realist Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Patient, Family, and Community Advisory Councils in Health Care and Research: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Women's Values and Preferences Regarding Osteoporosis Treatments: A Systematic Review.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2019Pooled it
- Integration of care for HIV and opioid use disorder.AIDS (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- What maximizes the effectiveness and implementation of technology-based interventions to support healthcare professional practice? A systematic literature review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: a systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Who is research serving? A systematic realist review of circumpolar environment-related Indigenous health literature.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Developing a framework for a novel multi-disciplinary, multi-agency intervention(s), to improve medication management in community-dwelling older people on complex medication regimens (MEMORABLE)--a realist synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A realist review of family-based interventions for children of substance abusing parents.Systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- A narrative synthesis of the impact of primary health care delivery models for refugees in resettlement countries on access, quality and coordination.International journal for equity in health · 2013Pooled it
- Risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Pooled it
75 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review as an alternative to (or to extend and supplement) conventional Cochrane-style reviews. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. However, the quality of such reviews can be difficult to assess. This study aims to produce methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for those seeking to use the realist and/or meta-narrative approach to systematic review. METHODS/
designWe will: [a] collate and summarise existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic review; [b] consider the extent to which these principles have been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; [c] using an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; [d] produce training materials with learning outcomes linked to these steps; [e] pilot these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews-in-progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arise; [f] synthesise expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards; [g] disseminate outputs to audiences in academia and policy. The outputs of the study will be threefold:1. Quality standards and methodological guidance for realist and meta-narrative reviews for use by researchers, research sponsors, students and supervisors2. A 'RAMESES' (Realist and Meta-review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards) statement (comparable to CONSORT or PRISMA) of publication standards for such reviews, published in an open-access academic journal.3. A training module for researchers, including learning outcomes, outline course materials and assessment criteria. DISCUSSION: Realist and meta-narrative review are relatively new approaches to systematic review whose overall place in the secondary research toolkit is not yet fully established. As with all secondary research methods, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency of studies.
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.