Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25312937›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2014

Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health.

Mhairi Campbell, Matt Egan, Theo Lorenc, Lyndal Bond, Frank Popham, Candida Fenton, Michaela Benzeval

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Analytical Frameworks and Outcome Measures in Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions: A Methodological Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Burnout in nursing: a theoretical review.Human resources for health · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors.

Mhairi CampbellMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. Mhairi.Campbell@glasgow.ac.uk.
Matt Egan
Theo Lorenc
Lyndal Bond
Frank Popham
Candida Fenton
Michaela Benzeval

Funding

Chief Scientist Office MC_UU_12017/4Chief Scientist Office SPHSU1Medical Research Council MC_UP_A540_1021Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReview of theory is an area of growing methodological advancement. Theoretical reviews are particularly useful where the literature is complex, multi-discipline, or contested. It has been suggested that adopting methods from systematic reviews may help address these challenges. However, the methodological approaches to reviews of theory, including the degree to which systematic review methods can be incorporated, have received little discussion in the literature. We recently employed systematic review methods in a review of theories about the causal relationship between income and health.

methodsThis article discusses some of the methodological issues we considered in developing the review and offers lessons learnt from our experiences. It examines the stages of a systematic review in relation to how they could be adapted for a review of theory. The issues arising and the approaches taken in the review of theories in income and health are considered, drawing on the approaches of other reviews of theory.

resultsDifferent approaches to searching were required, including electronic and manual searches, and electronic citation tracking to follow the development of theories. Determining inclusion criteria was an iterative process to ensure that inclusion criteria were specific enough to make the review practical and focused, but not so narrow that key literature was excluded. Involving subject specialists was valuable in the literature searches to ensure principal papers were identified and during the inductive approaches used in synthesis of theories to provide detailed understanding of how theories related to another. Reviews of theory are likely to involve iterations and inductive processes throughout, and some of the concepts and techniques that have been developed for qualitative evidence synthesis can be usefully translated to theoretical reviews of this kind.

conclusionsIt may be useful at the outset of a review of theory to consider whether the key aim of the review is to scope out theories relating to a particular issue; to conduct in-depth analysis of key theoretical works with the aim of developing new, overarching theories and interpretations; or to combine both these processes in the review. This can help decide the most appropriate methodological approach to take at particular stages of the review.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalReview Literature as TopicDatabases, BibliographicHealth StatusHumansIncomeInformation Storage and RetrievalResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID25312937
PMCPMC4208031

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.