Cargando…

Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review as an alternative to (or to extend and supplement) conventional Cochrane-style reviews. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Greenhalgh, Trisha, Wong, Geoff, Westhorp, Gill, Pawson, Ray
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21843376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-115
_version_ 1782211956160069632
author Greenhalgh, Trisha
Wong, Geoff
Westhorp, Gill
Pawson, Ray
author_facet Greenhalgh, Trisha
Wong, Geoff
Westhorp, Gill
Pawson, Ray
author_sort Greenhalgh, Trisha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review as an alternative to (or to extend and supplement) conventional Cochrane-style reviews. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. However, the quality of such reviews can be difficult to assess. This study aims to produce methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for those seeking to use the realist and/or meta-narrative approach to systematic review. METHODS/DESIGN: We will: [a] collate and summarise existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic review; [b] consider the extent to which these principles have been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; [c] using an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; [d] produce training materials with learning outcomes linked to these steps; [e] pilot these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews-in-progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arise; [f] synthesise expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards; [g] disseminate outputs to audiences in academia and policy. The outputs of the study will be threefold: 1. Quality standards and methodological guidance for realist and meta-narrative reviews for use by researchers, research sponsors, students and supervisors 2. A 'RAMESES' (Realist and Meta-review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards) statement (comparable to CONSORT or PRISMA) of publication standards for such reviews, published in an open-access academic journal. 3. A training module for researchers, including learning outcomes, outline course materials and assessment criteria. DISCUSSION: Realist and meta-narrative review are relatively new approaches to systematic review whose overall place in the secondary research toolkit is not yet fully established. As with all secondary research methods, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency of studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3173389
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31733892011-09-15 Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) Greenhalgh, Trisha Wong, Geoff Westhorp, Gill Pawson, Ray BMC Med Res Methodol Study Protocol BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review as an alternative to (or to extend and supplement) conventional Cochrane-style reviews. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. However, the quality of such reviews can be difficult to assess. This study aims to produce methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for those seeking to use the realist and/or meta-narrative approach to systematic review. METHODS/DESIGN: We will: [a] collate and summarise existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic review; [b] consider the extent to which these principles have been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; [c] using an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; [d] produce training materials with learning outcomes linked to these steps; [e] pilot these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews-in-progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arise; [f] synthesise expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards; [g] disseminate outputs to audiences in academia and policy. The outputs of the study will be threefold: 1. Quality standards and methodological guidance for realist and meta-narrative reviews for use by researchers, research sponsors, students and supervisors 2. A 'RAMESES' (Realist and Meta-review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards) statement (comparable to CONSORT or PRISMA) of publication standards for such reviews, published in an open-access academic journal. 3. A training module for researchers, including learning outcomes, outline course materials and assessment criteria. DISCUSSION: Realist and meta-narrative review are relatively new approaches to systematic review whose overall place in the secondary research toolkit is not yet fully established. As with all secondary research methods, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency of studies. BioMed Central 2011-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3173389/ /pubmed/21843376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-115 Text en Copyright ©2011 Greenhalgh et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Greenhalgh, Trisha
Wong, Geoff
Westhorp, Gill
Pawson, Ray
Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)
title Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)
title_full Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)
title_fullStr Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)
title_full_unstemmed Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)
title_short Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)
title_sort protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (rameses)
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21843376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-115
work_keys_str_mv AT greenhalghtrisha protocolrealistandmetanarrativeevidencesynthesisevolvingstandardsrameses
AT wonggeoff protocolrealistandmetanarrativeevidencesynthesisevolvingstandardsrameses
AT westhorpgill protocolrealistandmetanarrativeevidencesynthesisevolvingstandardsrameses
AT pawsonray protocolrealistandmetanarrativeevidencesynthesisevolvingstandardsrameses