Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21843376›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2011

Protocol--realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES).

Trisha Greenhalgh, Geoff Wong, Gill Westhorp, Ray Pawson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

135 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Women's Values and Preferences Regarding Osteoporosis Treatments: A Systematic Review.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2019
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. 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 · 2018
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghHealthcare Innovation and Policy Unit, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London E1 2AB, UK. p.greenhalgh@qmul.ac.uk
Geoff Wong
Gill Westhorp
Ray Pawson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Evaluation Studies as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicDelphi TechniqueHumansPeriodicals as TopicResearch PersonnelResearch Report

Identifiers

PMID21843376
PMCPMC3173389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.