Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23810026›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2013

The Oxford Implementation Index: a new tool for incorporating implementation data into systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Paul Montgomery, Kristen Underhill, Frances Gardner, Don Operario, Evan Mayo-Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Paul MontgomeryCentre for Evidence-Based Intervention, University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford, UK. paul.montgomery@psych.ox.ac.uk
Kristen Underhill
Frances Gardner
Don Operario
Evan Mayo-Wilson

Funding

Translational ScienceP30AI042853 · NIAID · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI LARRY K BROWN · 1998 to 2026
$51.7M
Developing an HIV Prevention Program for High Risk CouplesR34MH093232 · NIMH · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI NEMOTO, TOORU, OPERARIO, DON · 2011 to 2013
$583k
NIAID NIH HHS P30AI042853NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH093232
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis article presents a new tool that helps systematic reviewers to extract and compare implementation data across primary trials. Currently, systematic review guidance does not provide guidelines for the identification and extraction of data related to the implementation of the underlying interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingA team of systematic reviewers used a multistaged consensus development approach to develop this tool. First, a systematic literature search on the implementation and synthesis of clinical trial evidence was performed. The team then met in a series of subcommittees to develop an initial draft index. Drafts were presented at several research conferences and circulated to methodological experts in various health-related disciplines for feedback. The team systematically recorded, discussed, and incorporated all feedback into further revisions. A penultimate draft was discussed at the 2010 Cochrane-Campbell Collaboration Colloquium to finalize its content.

resultsThe Oxford Implementation Index provides a checklist of implementation data to extract from primary trials. Checklist items are organized into four domains: intervention design, actual delivery by trial practitioners, uptake of the intervention by participants, and contextual factors. Systematic reviewers piloting the index at the Cochrane-Campbell Colloquium reported that the index was helpful for the identification of implementation data.

conclusionThe Oxford Implementation Index provides a framework to help reviewers assess implementation data across trials. Reviewers can use this tool to identify implementation data, extract relevant information, and compare features of implementation across primary trials in a systematic review. The index is a work-in-progress, and future efforts will focus on refining the index, improving usability, and integrating the index with other guidance on systematic reviewing.

Indexed as

ChecklistEvidence-Based PracticeGuidelines as TopicMeta-Analysis as TopicReview Literature as TopicConsensusHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23810026
PMCPMC3746185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.