Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27342217›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2016

RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations.

Geoff Wong, Gill Westhorp, Ana Manzano, Joanne Greenhalgh, Justin Jagosh, Trish Greenhalgh

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06794632 (A Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 409 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
409citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
47.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT06794632 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorParker Research InstituteRan2025 to 2025Enrolled32ConditionsHand OsteoarthritisArmsHANDY occupational therapy intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

409 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 886 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Prevent, Promote, PromulgateChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. grckwong@gmail.com.
Gill WesthorpCommunity Matters, PO Box 443, Mount Torrens, South Australia, 5244, Australia.
Ana ManzanoSchool of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Joanne GreenhalghSchool of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Justin JagoshCentre for Advancement in Realist Evaluation and Synthesis, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Waterhouse Building, Block B, Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Trish GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
University of Leeds · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/1008/07Department of Health HS&DR/14/19/19
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRealist evaluation is increasingly used in health services and other fields of research and evaluation. No previous standards exist for reporting realist evaluations. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES II project. The project's aim is to produce initial reporting standards for realist evaluations.

methodsWe purposively recruited a maximum variety sample of an international group of experts in realist evaluation to our online Delphi panel. Panel members came from a variety of disciplines, sectors and policy fields. We prepared the briefing materials for our Delphi panel by summarising the most recent literature on realist evaluations to identify how and why rigour had been demonstrated and where gaps in expertise and rigour were evident. We also drew on our collective experience as realist evaluators, in training and supporting realist evaluations, and on the RAMESES email list to help us develop the briefing materials. Through discussion within the project team, we developed a list of issues related to quality that needed to be addressed when carrying out realist evaluations. These were then shared with the panel members and their feedback was sought. Once the panel members had provided their feedback on our briefing materials, we constructed a set of items for potential inclusion in the reporting standards and circulated these online to panel members. Panel members were asked to rank each potential item twice on a 7-point Likert scale, once for relevance and once for validity. They were also encouraged to provide free text comments.

resultsWe recruited 35 panel members from 27 organisations across six countries from nine different disciplines. Within three rounds our Delphi panel was able to reach consensus on 20 items that should be included in the reporting standards for realist evaluations. The overall response rates for all items for rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 94 %, 76 % and 80 %, respectively.

conclusionThese reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources. We hope that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders.

Indexed as

ConsensusGuidelines as TopicHealth Services ResearchHumansPublicationsDelphi approachRealist evaluationReporting guidelines

Identifiers

PMID27342217
PMCPMC4920991
OpenAlexW2464700444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.