Knowledge Synthesis in KT: Choosing among Literature Review Options
Knowledge Synthesis in KT: Choosing among Literature Review Options Kitty Corbett, PhD, MPH and Aislin Ryan (MPH2B) Knowledge into Action Student-led Conference Simon Fraser University Saturday, January 25, 2014 THANKS to Aislin Ryan for background work, brainstorming assistance, & some excellent graphics. • Conflict of interest: None for this presentation • SPECIAL THANKS to Dr. Charlie Goldsmith and students in SFU’s HSCI 891 Special Topics: Knowledge Translation, fall 2013 • This is a work in progress. If you have suggestions, please let us know. [email protected] • If you draw from our scheme for a presentation or paper, please cite us. SLIDES will be available through the conference link or a link at https://communication4health.wordpress.com/ The art & science of using the literature “My copy doesn’t have the references, Professor. Would you please provide them?” “I did that for many years. I no longer do. I mention some people in the paper, but frankly I’ve drawn from so many over my whole career, I can’t cite everybody. You can look up relevant sources if you want to.” http://bradoilpainting.com/male/oil-painting-professor/ Workshop objectives By the end of the workshop, participants will • Be able to differentiate among 4 types of literature reviews • Be able to construct questions suitable for each of these types of reviews • Have an enhanced understanding of types of literature reviews and the synthesis of literature in KT Road map • Literature synthesis in the KT cycle • So many labels! • Kinds of questions that reviews seek to answer • Four key types & their characteristics 1. 2. 3. 4. Plus activities The gold standard for rigour & effectiveness assessment: Systematic review A sometimes formal approach addressing breadth of what’s been done: Scoping review An approach that asks about the black box (e.g., who, how, theory) of policy & other interventions : Realistic review A generic type that requires your clarification: Narrative review • Recommendations Image Source: http://theinkroad.blogspot.ca/2009/11/biker-in-road.html Monitor Knowledge Use Select, Tailor, Implement Interventions Assess Barriers/Facilitators to Knowledge Use KNOWLEDGE CREATION Knowledge Inquiry Synthesis Adapt Knowledge to Local Context Evaluate Outcomes Products/ Tools Sustain Knowledge Use Identify Problem Identify, Review, Select Knowledge http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41953.html Knowledge Synthesis (KS) • Why do it? To determine • What is already known • Where there is a strong evidence base • When and how we might move that evidence into action • The formal use of K Synthesis in KT is mostly • Systematic reviews • Meta-analysis 7 “BRANDS” of reviews of studies, evidence, intervention strategies, etc. Rapid review Qualitative review Synthesis review Grounded theory review Scoping review Thematic synthesis Realist review Critical interpretive synthesis Meta-ethnography Framework synthesis Review of reviews Narrative review Systematic review Meta-analytic review / meta-analysis Narrative systematic review Rapid realist review Meta-synthesis Systematic narrative review Conceptual review “Critical review” “Synthesis review” … • “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” • “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass) Image Source: http://www.aliceinwonderlandshop.co.uk/toys.html BRANDS OVERLAP; definitions overlap Systematic review Meta-analytic review / meta-analysis Qualitative review Systematic narrative review Realist review Rapid realist review Scoping review Qualitative review Meta-ethnography Narrative review Synthesis review Grounded theory review For our purposes today: 4 types Systematic review Realist review Scoping review Narrative review It all begins with a question. • What works / what is effective? • What is the range of [policy/program] interventions for [XYZ]? • What kinds of theory-based intervention strategies have been tried for [XYZ]? • What kinds of audiences have been addressed? • What looks interesting / promising about…? ONE clear question 4 key types of reviews. For each, we’ll introduce: • Definition • Methodology • Types of questions that are appropriate • Examples • How To guidelines are at end of presentation slides Four key types of reviews & their characteristics 1. The gold standard for rigour & assessment of intervention/treatment effectiveness: Systematic review 2. A sometimes formal approach addressing breadth of what’s been done: Scoping review 3. An approach that asks about the black box (e.g., who, how, theory) of policy & other interventions : Realistic review 4. A generic type that requires your clarification: Narrative review Does “X” work? Systematic Reviews “Rigourous & reproducible” Image Source: http://ecoopportunity.net/2013/11/great-example-of-canadian-ledcollaboration-towards-a-gold-standard-benchmark-for-sustainable-business/ Definition Systematic Reviews • “a review of the evidence on a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant primary research, and to extract and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review.” [1] Systematic Reviews Methodology, in general Systematic reviews are usually characterized by • • • Their application to many important questions of effects of medical treatment, & other determinants, on health outcomes clarity & precision of question A formal algorithm for the whole process; great elaboration of detail about how the review is done enhancement of reliability Great attention to the research design & methodological rigour of the included studies; risk of bias quality assurance Methodology: steps Systematic Reviews 1. Define the review question 2. Develop criteria for including studies (inclusion & exclusion criteria) 3. Decide on sources of studies, e.g., literature databases 4. Select studies (using #2) 5. Collect data 6. Assess risk of bias in included studies 7. Analyse data (undertake meta-analysis, if applicable) 8. Address reporting biases 9. Present results and ‘Summary of findings’ tables 10. Interpret results and draw conclusions Use of databases & selection of references need their own workshop • • • • • • • • • • • Academic Search Premier MEDLINE with Full Text Web of Science CINAHL Global Health PsycINFO Communication & Mass Media Complete Communication Abstracts Business Source Complete Social Sciences Abstracts (H. W. Wilson) Sociological Abstracts PRISMA flow diagram showing selection of studies, inclusion & exclusion criteria A diagram such as this is typically expected for all systematic reviews & most others. Systematic Reviews Typical types of questions Effectiveness-related questions • Does ‘X’ work; is it effective? • What are the benefits and harms of treatment ‘X’ in humans? • What is the accuracy of diagnostic test ‘X’? • Is approach ‘A’ better than approach ‘B’? E.g., • Does exercise + stress management training improve QoL compared to exercise alone, over the short term, in university students? Phrasing the question for a systematic review. Good questions for systematic reviews are represented by the mnemonic “PICO” – or PICO[TS] P = participants I = intervention C = comparison (if appropriate) O = outcome T = time S = setting Systematic Reviews PICO[TS] PICOS de Alberta Example Systematic Reviews Forbes, D., Thiessen, E.J., Blake, C.M., Forbes, S.C., Forbes, S. (2013). Exercise Programs for people with dementia (Updated). Available at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD006489/exerciseprograms-for-people-with-dementia • Background: Exercise has been identified as a lifestyle factor that could potentially reduce or delay the progression of dementia symptoms • Methods: Review assessed 16 trials with a total of 937 participants that evaluated whether exercise improved the following outcomes in people with dementia: cognition, activities of daily living, behaviour, depression, and mortality or benefitted their family members • Results: • Promising evidence that exercise significantly improve cognition and performance of daily activities (but with variation between studies) • No significant effect found of exercise on mood • Little or no evidence of other outcomes • Quality of evidence: lack of evidence for behaviour, caregiver burden & mortality Example of a “well built clinical question”* – PICO Population Older people with dementia Intervention Exercise programs Systematic Reviews Comparison Usual care or social contact/activities (optional) Dementia outcomes: 1)Cognition 2)Activities of Outcome Daily Living 3) Behaviour 4) Depression 5) Mortality Time 2 year period Example of a “well built clinical question”* – PICO Systematic Reviews Population Older people with dementia Intervention Exercise programs Comparison (optional) Usual care or social contact/activities Outcome Dementia outcomes: 1)Cognition 2)Activities of Daily Living 3) Behaviour 4) Depression 5) Mortality Time 2 year period a. b. In _____[P], how does_____[I] compared with ______[C] affect _____[O] within / over ____[T]? Are _____[P], who receive _____[I], compared with those without [C], at higher/lower risk for _____[O] over ____[T]? Systematic Reviews ACTIVITY 1: In pairs, generate an example. Population Intervention Comparison (optional) Outcome Time Setting 1 MINUTE & counting… Systematic Reviews Key names • Cochrane Collaboration : • Named in honour of Archie Cochrane, a British medical researcher • SysRevs focus on effects of health care • http://www.cochrane.org Source: Cardiff University Library, Cochrane Archive, University Hospital Llandough • Campbell Collaboration: • Named in honour of Dr. Donald T. Campbell, member of National Academy of Sciences, USA • SysRevs focus on the effects of social interventions • http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/ Source: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/background/index.php Four key types of reviews & their characteristics 1. The gold standard for rigour & effectiveness assessment: Systematic review 2. A sometimes formal approach addressing breadth of what’s been done: Scoping review 3. An approach that asks about the black box (e.g., who, how, theory) of policy & other interventions : Realistic review 4. A generic type that requires your clarification: Narrative review Scoping Reviews “Mapping areas of research” Definition Scoping Reviews • “aim to map rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available, and can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, especially where an area is complex or has not been reviewed comprehensively before” [4] Arksey and O’Malley’s scheme outlines 4 aims: 1. examine extent, nature, and range of research activity 2. determine value of undertaking a full systematic review 3. summarize and disseminate research findings 4. identify research gaps in the existing literature [4] Scoping Reviews Methodology (as per Arksey & O’Malley) 1. Identify research question • Wide definitions are okay 2. Identify relevant studies • Can include various study designs (experimental, observational, qualitative) • Use different sources of data (e.g., grey lit) & be as comprehensive as possible 3. Select studies • Final inclusion & exclusion criteria can be determined post hoc 4. Chart the data • Synthesize and interpret by sorting into key themes 5. Collate, summarize, and report the results Often, no assessment of individual studies for risk of bias as in systematic revs [4] Appropriate questions Scoping Reviews • Questions that seek to establish what research has already been published on a given topic [5] • E.g., What is known from the existing literature about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of services to support carers of people with mental health problems? • Questions can be less specific than for systematic reviews and can apply to various study designs • Questions can be revised as the review unfolds & researchers become more comfortable with the literature • According to Daudt et al. [7] questions that seek to make comparisons between interventions, programs or approaches are most suitable [Creeping towards systematicity] Key names Scoping Reviews • Arksey and O’Malley • Published first methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews in 2005 • Levac et al. • In 2010, published “Scoping studies: advancing the methodology” [6]; aims to clarify and advance Arksey and O’Malley’s methodology • Daudt et al. • 2013, paper [7] outlining their experience applying Arksey and O’Malley’s methodology and proposing clarifications to the framework, including incorporating an assessment of the quality of the studies Scoping Reviews Examples Pagliari et al. (2005). What is eHealth?”: A Scoping Exercise to Map the Field. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1): E9. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.1.e9 Ridde, V. and Morestin, F. (2011). A scoping review of the literature on the abolition of user fees in health care services in Africa. Health Policy and Planning, 26, 1-11. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czq021 Systematic Reviews ACTIVITY 2: Scoping or systematic? Do this individually, then discuss in pairs. What does research say about the information provided by health care professionals and needed by people with colorectal cancers across the cancer care continuum? In Canadian men, does having a vasectomy increase the risk of getting testicular cancer in the future? Are children who live within 5 kilometres of a major roadway more likely than those who live farther away to be diagnosed with asthma before age five? Does a multi-faceted physical activity intervention for elders that includes supportive text messages work better than the intervention alone? What has been written about the use of dance as a process and product in health interventions? 1 MINUTE & counting… Four key types of reviews & their characteristics 1. The gold standard for rigour & effectiveness assessment: Systematic review 2. A sometimes formal approach addressing breadth of what’s been done: Scoping review 3. An approach that asks about the black box (e.g., who, how, theory) of policy & other interventions: Realistic review 4. A generic type that requires your clarification: Narrative review Realist reviews “Explanatory quest” “Opening the black box” Image Source: http://www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/2009/this-will-explaineverything/ Definition Realist Reviews • “an explanatory analysis aimed at discerning what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and how” [3, p. 32] • "attempts to provide a transferable theory that suggests that a certain program is more or less likely to work in these respects, for these subjects, in these kinds of situations" [8, p. 2] • Often about how/why policies & programs work Methodology 1. Realist Reviews Clarify scope • Research question, purpose of review, key theories to be explored • Design a theoretically-based evaluation framework 2. Search for evidence • Exploratory background literature to see what’s out there • Progressively focus on relevant program theories and refine inclusion/exclusion criteria • Purposive and snowball sampling 3. 4. Appraise primary studies & extract data Synthesize evidence & draw conclusions • Refine program theory – determine what works, for whom, how and when • Conclusions might be expressed as decision points: If A, then B. If C, then not D 5. Disseminate, implement, and evaluate [9, p. 24] Addition of Snowballing to track down references • • • • • Realist & narrative (& some scoping) reviews Pearl growing; “pearling” Reference harvesting Hand searching Pyramiding Digital snowballing • Useful for grey literature • http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Snowballing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl Realist Reviews Appropriate questions • Questions dealing with complex interventions (e.g., multi-faceted; diverse settings; diverse participants) [9] • Questions that aim to explain rather than make a judgment • WHAT is it about this kind of intervention that works, for WHOM, in what CIRCUMSTANCES, in what RESPECTS and WHY? Examples Wong et al. (2011). Policy guidance on threats to legislative interventions in public health: a realist synthesis. BMC Public Health, 11: 222. Realist Reviews Greenhalgh, T. et al. (2007). Realist review to understand the efficacy of school feeding programmes. BMJ, 335, 858-861 Key names Realist Reviews • Prof. Ray Pawson Department of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds • Developed the Realist Synthesis approach Source: http://www.sagepub.com/books ProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book22 7875 Source: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/booksProdDes c.nav?prodId=Book238842 Systematic Reviews ACTIVITY 3: Scoping or realist? Do this individually, then discuss in pairs. Why do certain engagement in care interventions for persons with diabetes work well in some contexts and fail in others? What are the different ways that peer influence strategies have been used to promote condom use among North American adolescents? What is known about the effects of medical tourism in destination and departure countries? In what kinds of programs has Photovoice contributed to policy change? [engaging participants in CBPR through their own photographs] 1 MINUTE & counting… Four key types of reviews & their characteristics 1. The gold standard for rigour & effectiveness assessment: Systematic review 2. A sometimes formal approach addressing breadth of what’s been done: Scoping review 3. An approach that asks about the black box (e.g., who, how, theory) of policy & other interventions : Realistic review 4. A generic type that requires your clarification: Narrative review Narrative Reviews Flexible & eclectic (“Call it like you see it”) Source: http://ask2vikramsingh.blogspot.ca/2013/09/5-internet-marketingstrategies-get.html Definition Narrative Reviews • [A more systematic def] “an approach to the systematic review and synthesis of findings from multiple studies that relies primarily on the use of words and text to summarise and explain the findings of the synthesis” …. “at the heart of narrative synthesis [is telling a trustworthy story]” [13, p. 5] • “a flexible & eclectic approach that can be used in 3 situations: 1. 2. 3. before undertaking a statistical meta-analysis instead of a statistical meta-analysis (because the experimental or quasiexperimental studies included are not sufficiently similar to allow for this) where the review questions dictate the inclusion of a wide range of different research designs […] for which no other specialist approach to synthesis is appropriate” [14, p. 17] Methodology Narrative Reviews Anything goes? • Suggested guidelines vary…. • According to Green et al. (2006) [15]: • There are no strict guidelines for what should and should not be included in a narrative review. • Still, they argue narrative reviews should: 1. Follow the structure suggested in manuscript and biomedical journal guidelines (intro, methods, conclusion, etc.) 2. Be as objective as possible 3. Describe & synthesize available literature and provide a conclusion 4. Describe step by step how study was performed 5. State the database searched, a starting year, and the ending year and month of the search 6. Briefly describe selection criteria Narrative Reviews Methodology (cont’d) Another brand: Synthetic reviews • Popay et al. [13] lay out slightly more structured criteria specific to narrative syntheses that look at the effect and implementation of interventions • The steps they outline are similar to those of a systematic or scoping review: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Identifying focus of the review, searching for and mapping evidence Specifying the review question Identifying studies to include in the review Data extraction and quality appraisal Synthesis Reporting results and dissemination Narrative Reviews Appropriate questions • Suitable for the discussion of theory and context – and to spark scholarly dialogue among readers…. [15] • In their broadest definition, narrative reviews can answer theoretical questions that are beyond the scope of any other review [16] • Can answer a wide range of questions including those related to effectiveness or cost effectiveness, issues of efficacy, appropriateness, feasibility of implementation, or a combination of these. [13, p. 6] Narrative Reviews Examples: Meta-ethnography Often cited example: • Pound, P. et al. (2005). Resisting Medicines: A Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Medicine Taking. Social Science and Medicine 61, 133–55. • Campbell, R., et al. (2003). Evaluating Meta-Ethnography: A Synthesis of Qualitative Research on Lay Experiences of Diabetes and Diabetes Care. Social Science and Medicine 56, 671–84 Narrative Reviews Examples: Policy-focused • Mays, N., Pope, C., Popay, J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005: 10; 6-20. • Walt, G., Shiffman, J., Schneider, H., Murray, S.F., Burgha, R., Gilson, L. ‘Doing’ health policy analysis: Methodological and conceptual challenges. Health Policy and Planning. 2008; 23: 303-317. • Synthesizing evidence for management and policy making (Supplement). J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 July;10(Suppl 1). Some cautions Narrative Reviews Some would assert that: “There are no standard methods for conducting syntheses of qualitative research” (Britten 2002) Most would agree that: “…many aspects of the steps in the process remain ill-defined.” (Atkins BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008, 8:21 ) But perhaps that’s okay? Key names • Jennie Popay and collaborators from a variety of UK universities who published guidelines on how to conduct narrative synthesis. She works with the Campbell Collaboration Process Implementation Methods Group and the Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. Narrative Reviews Jennie Popay Example Narrative Reviews McCreaddie, M. and Wiggins, S. (2008). The purpose and function of humour in health, health care and nursing: a narrative review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(6), 584– 595. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.13652648.2007.04548.x Systematic Reviews ACTIVITY: Appropriate for a narrative review? What is important to include in cultural competency training for students going to do practicum work internationally? What are the experiences of children living with a sibling with autism? How do elderly people living with palliative care perceive time? 1 MINUTE & counting… REVIEW: Four key types of reviews & their characteristics 1. The gold standard for rigour & effectiveness assessment: Systematic review 2. A sometimes formal approach addressing breadth of what’s been done: Scoping review 3. An approach that asks about the black box (e.g., who, how, theory) of policy & other interventions : Realistic review 4. A generic type that requires your clarification: Narrative review Decisions, decisions… Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No SYSTEMATIC REVIEW APPLY FOR MORE FUNDING SCOPING REVIEW BRAINSTORM SOME MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO GET OUT OF YOUR REVIEW REALIST REVIEW No Yes No NARRATIVE REVIEW MAYBE YOU NEED A DIFFERENT TYPE OF REVIEW Scoping, realist, or narrative? Spinning your review label How can you make your question match criteria? • SCOPING: emphasize breadth of what’s out there in the lit • Might be prep for systematic review • REALIST: emphasize conceptual / theoretical aspects of the how and why of interventions • NARRATIVE: you better say what you mean by this. • E.g., “systematic narrative review”: this is a systematic review • E.g., selection of cases or ‘stories’ from the literature to illustrate a particular perspective or point • E.g., a review involving non-systematic selection of literature, i.e., cherry picking “pearls” or exemplars from the literature on a specific topic [or from cross-disciplinary, cross-topic literature], for discussing a philosophical, theoretical, political, etc. point Activity 4: Generate 1 question for each of the following types of reviews SYSTEMATIC: SCOPING: REALIST: NARRATIVE: 1 MINUTE & counting… Recommendation: Specify what kind of review you’re doing & provide a reference or example from the “how to” literature. • Be specific about which type of review you are conducting (systematic, scoping, realist) and tell your reader why you chose that method • If your following the guidelines laid out in a how-to guide or reference article, cite it in your methodology section • This helps guide researchers looking to do future reviews and helps to standardize different methodologies Recommendation: Suggested general competencies to pursue • • • • • Generating & refining questions Matching questions to search designs Selecting & using library databases Conducting key word searches Using a flow chart to track sample of references in terms of searches and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria • Using appraisal systems to assess quality & value of references for your purposes • Coding content of references to extract information you need to (a) answer your question and (b) defend your method • Interpreting results Recommendation: Learn more, find examples, & use how-to resources • Seek out how-to articles or guideline documents, to get a better idea of the methodological criteria specific to particular brands of review • If you just go to the Methods sections of papers – regardless of the brand of review - the methods often sound the same. Go deeper. • Great SFU resource for Cochrane reviews: Dr. Charlie Goldsmith • Librarians References & resources 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Cochrane Public Health. Unit 1: Background to Systematic Reviews. Available at: http://ph.cochrane.org/sites/ph.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Unit_One.pd f [ALSO SEE: The Cochrane Collaboration. (2013). Cochrane Reviews. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews.] Higgins, J. P.T. and Green, S., eds. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org/ Grimshaw, J. (n.d.). A Knowledge Synthesis Chapter. Available at: http://www.cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/documents/knowledge_synthesis_chapter_e.pdf Arksey, H. and O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 HLWIKI International. (2014). Scoping Reviews. Available at: http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Scoping_reviews References (cont’d) 6. Levac et al. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5:69. Available at: http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/69 7. Daudt et al. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13:48. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/13/48 8. Saul, J.E. et al. (2013). A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review. Implementation Science, 8:103. Available at: http://www.implementationscience.com/content/8/1/103 9. Pawson, R. et al. (2005). Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(S1), 21-34. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530 10. Wong et al. (2011). Policy guidance on threats to legislative interventions in public health: a realist synthesis. BMC Public Health, 11: 222. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/222 References (cont’d) 12. Greenhalgh, T. et al. (2007). Realist review to understand the efficacy of school feeding programmes. BMJ, 335, 858-861. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39359.525174.AD 13. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., and Rodgers, M. (2005). Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. Version 2. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University. 14. Popay, J. and Mallinson, S. (2010). Qualitative Research Review and Synthesis in The Sage Handbook Qualitative Methods Health Research. London: Sage Publications. 15. Green, B.N. et al. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peerreviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101-117. 16. Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1997). Writing Narrative Literature Reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311-320. How-to Guidelines Systematic Reviews There are many excellent resources and examples for systematic reviews. • Higgins, J. P.T. and Green, S., eds. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org/ • The Campbell Collaboration. (n.d.). Resource Center. Available at: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/resources/research/th e_production.php • How the Aussies are doing it: http://joannabriggs.org/index.html How-to Guidelines Scoping Reviews • Arksey, H. and O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 • Levac et al. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5:69. Available at: http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/69 • Daudt et al. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13:48. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712288/13/48 How-to Guidelines Realist Reviews • Pawson, R. et al. (2005). Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(S1), 21-34. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530 How-to do a Rapid Realist Review: • Saul, J.E. et al. (2013). A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review. Implementation Science, 8:103. Available at: http://www.implementationscience.com/content/8/1/103 How-to Guidelines Narrative Reviews • Popay, J. and Mallinson, S. (2010). Qualitative Research Review and Synthesis in The Sage Handbook Qualitative Methods Health Research. London: Sage Publications. • Green, B.N. et al. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101-117. • Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311-320. More resources • CIHR. Synthesis Resources: http://www.cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/36331.html • UBC Library: http://guides.library.ubc.ca/litreviews • EPPI Centre (policy & professional practice): http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/ • http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Snowballing Narrative Reviews Examples: Meta-ethnography • Noblit, G. Hare, R. (1988) Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. • Britten N et al. (2002). , Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R: Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy, 7, 209-215 PROSPERO Registration for systematic reviews • Why? • to avoid excessive duplication • Documents compliance with PRISMA Guideline • Useful one-hour webinar on PROSPERO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y-zpftqlUo If you’re into rigour: check out GRADE • “GRADE is a systematic and explicit approach to making judgements about quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. • It was developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group, and it is now widely seen as the most effective method of linking evidence-quality evaluations to clinical recommendations.” http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/eb m/learn/665072.html • Quality, methodological • Consistency of results across different studies • Directness - generalisability of population and outcomes • Effective size GRADES = -3 to +4 e.g., Quality score: Systematic review of RCTs +4 e.g., Consistency score: Lack of agreement between studies (e.g., statistical heterogeneity between RCTs, conflicting results) -1 •“Critically appraising quality and relevance” http://www.strath.ac.uk/aer/materials/8systematicreview/unit10/appraising/ Constructing a good systematic review question
© Copyright 2024