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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lorenc, Theo, Felix, Lambert, Petticrew, Mark, Melendez-Torres, G J, Thomas, James, Thomas, Sian, O’Mara-Eves, Alison, Richardson, Michelle
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