Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: a methodological assessment of systematic reviews

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 105, Issue , 2019, Pages 1-9

  Campbell, Mhairi ^a   Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal ^a   Sowden, Amanda ^b   Thomson, Hilary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence synthesis; Meta research; Methodology; Narrative synthesis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; NARRATIVE; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOM SAMPLE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDITY; EVALUATION STUDY; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; METHODOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

DATA ACCURACY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85054237301     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.08.019     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Lavis, J.N., Posada, F.B., Haines, A., Osei, E., Use of research to inform public policymaking. Lancet 364 (2004), 1615–1621.
2. Ogilvie, D., Craig, P., Griffin, S., Macintyre, S., Wareham, N.J., A translational framework for public health research. BMC Public Health, 9, 2009, 116.
3. Petticrew, M., Anderson, L., Elder, R., Grimshaw, J., Hopkins, D., Hahn, R., et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 1209–1214.
4. Achana, F., Hubbard, S., Sutton, A., Kendrick, D., Cooper, N., An exploration of synthesis methods in public health evaluations of interventions concludes that the use of modern statistical methods would be beneficial. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 376–390.
5. Higgins, J.P., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0, 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
6. Valentine, J.C., Cooper, H., Patall, E.A., Tyson, D., Robinson, J.C., A method for evaluating research syntheses: the quality, conclusions, and consensus of 12 syntheses of the effects of after-school programs. Res Synth Methods 1 (2010), 20–38.
7. Valentine, J.C., Wilson, S.J., Rindskopf, D., Lau, T.S., Tanner-Smith, E.E., Yeide, M., et al. Synthesizing evidence in public policy contexts. Eval Rev 41 (2017), 3–26.
8. Campbell, M., Thomson, H., Katikireddi, S., Sowden, A., Assessing reporting of narrative synthesis of quantitative data in public health systematic reviews [protocol]. 2015, MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
9. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. 2006, ESRC Methods Programme, Swindon.
10. Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J., An introduction to systematic reviews. 2012, Sage, London.
11. Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. 2006, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
12. Pope, C., Mays, N., Popay, J., Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: a guide to methods. 2007, Open University Press, London.
13. Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Jackson, N., Oliver, S., Popay, J., Shepherd, J., et al. Guidelines for systematic reviews of health promotion and public health interventions. Version 2. 2007, Melbourne University, Australia.
14. World Health Organization. WHO handbook for guideline development. 2014, World Health Organization, Geneva.
15. Lee, E., Dobbins, M., DeCorby, K., McRae, L., Tirilis, D., Husson, H., An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol 12 (2012), 1–11.
16. Popay, J., Methods for the development of nice public health guidance. 2012, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London.
17. Thomas, J., Harden, A., Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 8, 2008, 45.
18. Hedges, L.V., Cooper, H.M., The handbook of research synthesis. 1994, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
19. Petticrew, M., Rehfuess, E., Noyes, J., Higgins, J.P., Mayhew, A., Pantoja, 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.
20. France, E.F., Ring, N., Thomas, R., Noyes, J., Maxwell, M., Jepson, R., A methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol, 14, 2014, 119.
21. Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C.J., Gülmezoglu, M., et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med, 12, 2015, e1001895.
22. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, 2009, 2535.
23. France, E.F., Ring, N., Noyes, J., Maxwell, M., Jepson, R., Duncan, E., et al. Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe). BMC Med Res Methodol, 15, 2015, 103.
24. Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., Craig, J., Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol, 12, 2012, 181.
25. Shepperd, S., Lewin, S., Straus, S., Clarke, M., Eccles, M.P., Fitzpatrick, R., et al. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions?. PLoS Med, 6, 2009, e1000086.
26. Viswanathan, M., McPheeters, M., Murad, M., Butler, M.B., Devine, E., Dyson, M., et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews – paper 4: selecting analytic approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 90 (2017), 28–36.
27. Lorenc, T., Felix, L., Petticrew, M., Melendez-Torres, G., Thomas, J., Thomas, S., et al. Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices. Syst Rev, 5, 2016, 192.
28. Melendez-Torres, G.J., O'Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., Brunton, G., Caird, J., Petticrew, M., Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation. Res Synth Methods 8 (2016), 109–118.
29. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane strategy to 2020. Available at: https://community-archive.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Strategy%20to%202020_updated_Final_Feb2016.pdf, 2016. (Accessed 10 May 2017)
30. Thomson, H., Campbell, M., Katikireddi, S., Sowden, A., An analysis of the transparency of narrative synthesis methods in systematic reviews of quantitative data. 2016, 24th Cochrane Colloquium, Seoul, South Korea.
31. Plint, A.C., Moher, D., Morrison, A., Schulz, K., Altman, D.G., Hill, C., et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 185 (2006), 263–267.
32. Glasziou, P., Meats, E., Heneghan, C., Shepperd, S., What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?. BMJ 336 (2008), 1472–1474.