Cargando…
Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices
BACKGROUND: Complex or heterogeneous data pose challenges for systematic review and meta-analysis. In recent years, a number of new methods have been developed to meet these challenges. This qualitative interview study aimed to understand researchers’ understanding of complexity and heterogeneity an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112624/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27852314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0366-6 |
_version_ | 1782468038371573760 |
---|---|
author | Lorenc, Theo Felix, Lambert Petticrew, Mark Melendez-Torres, G J Thomas, James Thomas, Sian O’Mara-Eves, Alison Richardson, Michelle |
author_facet | Lorenc, Theo Felix, Lambert Petticrew, Mark Melendez-Torres, G J Thomas, James Thomas, Sian O’Mara-Eves, Alison Richardson, Michelle |
author_sort | Lorenc, Theo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Complex or heterogeneous data pose challenges for systematic review and meta-analysis. In recent years, a number of new methods have been developed to meet these challenges. This qualitative interview study aimed to understand researchers’ understanding of complexity and heterogeneity and the factors which may influence the choices researchers make in synthesising complex data. METHODS: We conducted interviews with a purposive sample of researchers (N = 19) working in systematic review or meta-analysis across a range of disciplines. We analysed data thematically using a framework approach. RESULTS: Participants reported using a broader range of methods and data types in complex reviews than in traditional reviews. A range of techniques are used to explore heterogeneity, but there is some debate about their validity, particularly when applied post hoc. CONCLUSIONS: Technical considerations of how to synthesise complex evidence cannot be isolated from questions of the goals and contexts of research. However, decisions about how to analyse data appear to be made in a largely informal way, drawing on tacit expertise, and their relation to these broader questions remains unclear. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5112624 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-51126242016-11-25 Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices Lorenc, Theo Felix, Lambert Petticrew, Mark Melendez-Torres, G J Thomas, James Thomas, Sian O’Mara-Eves, Alison Richardson, Michelle Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Complex or heterogeneous data pose challenges for systematic review and meta-analysis. In recent years, a number of new methods have been developed to meet these challenges. This qualitative interview study aimed to understand researchers’ understanding of complexity and heterogeneity and the factors which may influence the choices researchers make in synthesising complex data. METHODS: We conducted interviews with a purposive sample of researchers (N = 19) working in systematic review or meta-analysis across a range of disciplines. We analysed data thematically using a framework approach. RESULTS: Participants reported using a broader range of methods and data types in complex reviews than in traditional reviews. A range of techniques are used to explore heterogeneity, but there is some debate about their validity, particularly when applied post hoc. CONCLUSIONS: Technical considerations of how to synthesise complex evidence cannot be isolated from questions of the goals and contexts of research. However, decisions about how to analyse data appear to be made in a largely informal way, drawing on tacit expertise, and their relation to these broader questions remains unclear. BioMed Central 2016-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5112624/ /pubmed/27852314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0366-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Lorenc, Theo Felix, Lambert Petticrew, Mark Melendez-Torres, G J Thomas, James Thomas, Sian O’Mara-Eves, Alison Richardson, Michelle Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices |
title | Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices |
title_full | Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices |
title_fullStr | Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices |
title_full_unstemmed | Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices |
title_short | Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices |
title_sort | meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112624/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27852314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0366-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lorenctheo metaanalysiscomplexityandheterogeneityaqualitativeinterviewstudyofresearchersmethodologicalvaluesandpractices AT felixlambert metaanalysiscomplexityandheterogeneityaqualitativeinterviewstudyofresearchersmethodologicalvaluesandpractices AT petticrewmark metaanalysiscomplexityandheterogeneityaqualitativeinterviewstudyofresearchersmethodologicalvaluesandpractices AT melendeztorresgj metaanalysiscomplexityandheterogeneityaqualitativeinterviewstudyofresearchersmethodologicalvaluesandpractices AT thomasjames metaanalysiscomplexityandheterogeneityaqualitativeinterviewstudyofresearchersmethodologicalvaluesandpractices AT thomassian metaanalysiscomplexityandheterogeneityaqualitativeinterviewstudyofresearchersmethodologicalvaluesandpractices AT omaraevesalison metaanalysiscomplexityandheterogeneityaqualitativeinterviewstudyofresearchersmethodologicalvaluesandpractices AT richardsonmichelle metaanalysiscomplexityandheterogeneityaqualitativeinterviewstudyofresearchersmethodologicalvaluesandpractices |