AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews—paper 5: advanced analytic methods

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 90, Issue , 2017, Pages 37-42

  Pigott, Terri ^a   Noyes, Jane ^b   Umscheid, Craig A ^c   Myers, Evan ^d   Morton, Sally C ^e   Fu, Rongwei ^f   Sanders Schmidler, Gillian D ^d   Devine, Beth ^g   Murad, M Hassan ^h   Kelly, Michael P ⁱ   Fonnesbeck, Christopher ^j   Kahwati, Leila ^k   Beretvas, S Natasha ^l  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

^b BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^h MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^j VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^k RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Bayesian analysis; Decision analysis; Finite mixture models; Meta analysis; Meta regression; Qualitative synthesis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DECISION MAKING; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); BAYES THEOREM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85028070287     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.015     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Anderson, L.M., Oliver, S.R., Michie, S., Rehfuess, E., Noyes, J., Shemilt, I., Investigating complexity in systematic reviews of interventions by using a spectrum of methods. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1223–1229.
2. Noyes, J., Gough, D., Lewin, S., Mayhew, A., Michie, S., Pantoia, T., et al. A research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1262–1270.
3. Petticrew, M., Rehfuess, E., Noyes, J., Higgins, J.P., Mayhew, A., Pantoia, T., et al. Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1230–1243.
4. Guise, J.M., Chang, C., Butler, M., Viswanathan, M., Tugwell, P., AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews—paper 1: an introduction to a series of articles provides guidance and tools for reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 96 (2017), 6–10.
5. Viswanathan, M., McPheeters, M.L., Murad, M.H., Butler, M.E., Devine, E.E., Dyson, M.P., et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews—paper 4: selecting analytic approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 90 (2017), 28–36.
6. Higgins JPT, Green S, Eds., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Vol. 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org.
7. Salanti, G., Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 3 (2012), 80–97.
8. Welton, N.J., Caldwell, D., Adamopoulos, E., Vedhara, K., Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease. Am J Epidemiol 169 (2009), 1158–1165.
9. Shadish, W.R., Rindskopf, D.M., Methods for evidence-based practice: quantitative synthesis of single-subject designs. New Dir Eval 2007 (2007), 95–109.
10. Moeyaert, M., Ferron, J.M., Beretvas, S.N., Van den Noortgate, W., From a single-level analysis to a multilevel analysis of single-case experimental designs. J Sch Psychol 52 (2014), 191–211.
11. Jackson, D., Riley, R., White, I.R., Multivariate meta-analysis: potential and promise. Stat Med 30 (2011), 2481–2498.
12. Hedges, L.V., Tipton, E., Johnson, M.C., Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synth Methods 1 (2010), 39–65.
13. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J., Rothstein, H.R., Introduction to meta-analysis. 2009, Wiley Online Library, West Sussex, UK.
14. Smith, T.C., Spiegelhalter, D.J., Thomas, A., Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Stat Med 14 (1995), 2685–2699.
15. Gagné, P., Mean and covariance structure mixture models. Hancock, G.R., Mueller, R., (eds.) Structural equation modeling: A second course, 2006, Information Age, Greenwich, CT, 197–224.
16. Cheung, M., Meta-analysis: a structural equation modeling approach. 2015, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK.
17. Allua, S., Stapleton, L.M., Beretvas, S.N., Testing latent mean differences between observed and unobserved groups using multilevel factor mixture models. Educ Psychol Meas 68 (2008), 357–378.
18. Ragin, C.C., Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. 2008, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
19. Rihoux, B., Ragin, C.C., Configurational comparative methods: qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. 2009, SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
20. Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C., Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Int J Comp Sociol 9:3 (2010), 397–418.
21. Schneider, C.Q., Wagemann, C., Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis. 2012, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
22. Saramago, P., Cooper, N.J., Sutton, A.J., Hayes, M., Dunn, K., Manca, A., et al. Cost-effectiveness of interventions for increasing the possession of functioning smoke alarms in households with pre-school children: a modelling study. BMC Public Health, 14, 2014, 459.
23. Turley, R., Saith, R., Bhan, N., Doyle, J., Jones, K., Waters, E., Slum upgrading review: methodological challenges that arise in systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Public Health 35 (2013), 171–175.
24. Polanin, J.R., Pigott, T.D., The use of meta-analytic statistical significance testing. Res Synth Methods 6 (2015), 63–73.
25. Berlin, J.A., Santanna, J., Schmid, C.H., Szczech, L.A., Feldman, H.I., Individual patient-versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med 21 (2002), 371–387.
26. Schmid, C.H., Stark, P.C., Berlin, J.A., Landais, P., Lau, J., Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004), 683–697.
27. Noyes, J., Hendry, M., Booth, A., Chandler, J., Lewin, S., Glenton, C., et al. Current use and Cochrane guidance on selection of social theories for systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 75 (2015), 78–92.
28. Moore, G.F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. Br Med J, 350, 2015, h1258.
29. Noyes, J., Hannes, K., Booth, A., Harris, J., Harden, A., Popay, J., et al. Chapter 20: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.3.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2015 Available at http://qim.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance.
30. Glenton, C., Colvin, C.J., Carlsen, B., Swartz, A., Lewin, S., Noyes, J., et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of lay health worker programmes to improve access to maternal and child health: qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013, CD010414.
31. Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Authur, A., Harvey, J., et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol, 6, 2006, 35.
32. Oliver, S., Harden, A., Rees, R., Shepherd, J., Brunton, G., Garcia, J., et al. An emerging framework for including different types of evidence in systematic reviews for public policy. Evaluation 11:4 (2005), 428–446.
33. Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., Walshe, K., Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 10 (2005), 21–34.
34. Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., Voils, C.I., Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Res Nurs Health 30 (2007), 99–111.
35. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme. Version 1. 2006.
36. Lewin, S., Munabi-Babigumira, S., Glenton, C., Daniels, K., Bosch-Capblanch, X., van Wyk, B.E., et al. Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010, CD004015, 10.1002/14651858.CD004015.pub3.
37. Hunink, M.M., Weinstein, M.C., Wittenberg, E., Drummond, M.F., Pliskin, J.S., Wong, J.B., et al. Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values. 2014, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
38. Havrilesky, L.J., Chino, J.P., Myers, E.R., How much is another randomized trial of lymph node dissection in endometrial cancer worth? A value of information analysis. Gynecol Oncol 131 (2013), 140–146.
39. Claxton, K.P., Sculpher, M.J., Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research. Pharmacoeconomics 24 (2006), 1055–1068.
40. Fenwick, E., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making 28 (2008), 21–32.
41. Pei, P., Weinstein, M., Li, X., Hughes, M.D., Paltiel, D.A., Hou, T., et al. Prioritizing HIV comparative effectiveness trials based on value of information: generic versus brand-name ART in the US. HIV Clin Trials 16 (2015), 207–218 1945577115Y0000000009.