ArticleBMC medicine2016
RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations.
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.
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.
A Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Study
Who cites it
409 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 886 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial programme theory developing for interprofessional case discussions (InCaD) in acute hospital care: a realist approach.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Do hospital-to-home transitions work for older adults with multiple long-term conditions including dementia? A realist review.BMC geriatrics · 2025Pooled it
- How can interprofessional collaboration be fostered and sustained in team-based care integration for older people in community settings? A realist evidence synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- A global scoping review on the patterns of medical fraud and abuse: integrating data-driven detection, prevention, and legal responses.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Pooled it
- What are the mechanisms of effect of group antenatal care? A systematic realist review and synthesis of the literature.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- A rapid realist review of clinical neuropsychology rehabilitation programmes to improve psychological wellbeing and quality of life for people with acquired brain injuries.Neuropsychological rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Insights Into How Digital Health Interventions Shape Outcomes for Emerging Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes: Qualitative Realist Process Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- How shared-site intergenerational programs support psychosocial well-being in residential aged care: a realist evaluation.The Gerontologist · 2026Article
- Navigating Stigma and Support: Realist Evaluation of Support for Migrant Informal Caregivers of Loved Ones with Mental Illness.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- Realist synthesis of co-production of services in a local authority context: what works, for whom, how and in what circumstances?Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Prevent, Promote, PromulgateChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Understanding Implementation of a Technology-Facilitated Hypertension Model in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Realist Evaluation of Staff Experiences.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- A Realist Evaluation of a Rapid Response System for Mental State Deterioration in Acute Hospital Settings.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Telerehabilitation Interventions That Improve Adherence to Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients With Chronic Respiratory Diseases: A Realist Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Review
- Realist Collaborative Evaluation of a Work Disability Prevention Program for Breast Cancer Survivors: Protocol for a RECOVA-FASTRACS Realist Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
349 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.