Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35932206›Full record

ReviewResearch synthesis methods2022

Using systems perspectives in evidence synthesis: A methodological mapping review.

Quan Nha Hong, Mukdarut Bangpan, Claire Stansfield, Dylan Kneale, Alison O'Mara-Eves, Leonie van Grootel, James Thomas

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Research synthesis methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
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.

Quan Nha HongEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2576-5750
Mukdarut BangpanEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8887-659X
Claire StansfieldEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0718-0409
Dylan KnealeEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7016-978X
Alison O'Mara-EvesEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0359-6423
Leonie van GrootelRathenau Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands.
James ThomasEPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé (FRQS)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reviewing complex interventions is challenging because they include many elements that can interact dynamically in a nonlinear manner. A systems perspective offers a way of thinking to help understand complex issues, but its application in evidence synthesis is not established. The aim of this project was to understand how and why systems perspectives have been applied in evidence synthesis. A methodological mapping review was conducted to identify papers using a systems perspective in evidence synthesis. A search was conducted in seven bibliographic databases and three search engines. A total of 101 papers (representing 98 reviews) met the eligibility criteria. Two categories of reviews were identified: (1) reviews using a "systems lens" to frame the topic, generate hypotheses, select studies, and guide the analysis and interpretation of findings (n = 76) and (2) reviews using systems methods to develop a systems model (n = 22). Several methods (e.g., systems dynamic modeling, soft systems approach) were identified, and they were used to identify, rank and select elements, analyze interactions, develop models, and forecast needs. The main reasons for using a systems perspective were to address complexity, view the problem as a whole, and understand the interrelationships between the elements. Several challenges for capturing the true nature and complexity of a problem were raised when performing these methods. This review is a useful starting point when designing evidence synthesis of complex interventions. It identifies different opportunities for applying a systems perspective in evidence synthesis, and highlights both commonplace and less familiar methods.

Indexed as

Databases, Bibliographiccomplex adaptive systemscomplex systemsevidence synthesissystematic reviewssystems perspectivesystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID35932206

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.