Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline

The BMJ

Volumn 368, Issue , 2020, Pages

  Campbell, Mhairi ^a   McKenzie, Joanne E ^b   Sowden, Amanda ^c   Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal ^a   Brennan, Sue E ^b   Ellis, Simon ^d   Hartmann Boyce, Jamie ^e   Ryan, Rebecca ^f   Shepperd, Sasha ^e   Thomas, James ^g   Welch, Vivian ^h   Thomson, Hilary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^h BRUYÈRE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDITY; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

DATA ACCURACY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT, HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85077941623     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6890     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature 2018;558:361-4. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-05414-4
2. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
3. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467-73. doi:10.7326/M18-0850
4. Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al, PRISMAHarms Group. PRISMA harms checklist: Improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ 2016;352:i157. doi:10.1136/bmj.i157
5. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:777-84. doi:10.7326/M14-2385
6. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002028. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
7. Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Sowden A, Thomson H. Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: A methodological assessment of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;105:1-9. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.08.019
8. Campbell M, Katikireddi S, Sowden A, et al. Transparency in the reporting and conduct of narrative synthesis of quantitative data in systematic reviews (conference abstract). J Epidemiol Community Health 2018;72(Suppl 1):A23.
9. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product of the ESRC methods programme (version I). University of Lancaster, 2006.
10. Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Sowden A, et al. Improving Conduct and Reporting of Narrative Synthesis of Quantitative Data (ICONS-Quant): Protocol for a mixed methods study to develop a reporting guideline. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020064. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020064
11. McKenzie J, Brennan S. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 321-48. doi:10.1002/9781119536604. ch12
12. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: Realist syntheses. BMC Med 2013;11:21. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-21
13. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med 2013;11:20. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-20
14. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:181. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
15. France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:25. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0
16. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
17. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, et al. Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 33-66. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch3
18. Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 2011;2:33-42. doi:10.1002/jrsm.32
19. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1258
20. Thomas J, Kneale D, McKenzie JE, et al. Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 13-32. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch2
21. Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2000;19:3127-31. doi:10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:223.0.CO;2-M
22. Higgins J, Li T, Deeks J. Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 143-76. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch6
23. Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, et al. Completing 'Summary of findings' tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 376-402. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch14
24. Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: Trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ 2001;322:1479-80. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1479
25. Ogilvie D, Fayter D, Petticrew M, et al. The harvest plot: A method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:8. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-8
26. Thomson HJ, Thomas S. The effect direction plot: Visual display of non-standardised effects across multiple outcome domains. Res Synth Methods 2013;4:95-101. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1060
27. Harrison S, Jones HE, Martin RM, Lewis SJ, Higgins JPT. The albatross plot: A novel graphical tool for presenting results of diversely reported studies in a systematic review. Res Synth Methods 2017;8:281-9. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1239
28. Schriger DL, Sinha R, Schroter S, Liu PY, Altman DG. From submission to publication: A retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal. Ann Emerg Med 2006;48:750-6, 756.e1-21. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.017
29. McGill R, Tukey JW, Larsen WA. Variations of box plots. Am Stat 1978;32:12-6.
30. Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, et al. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Res Synth Methods 2018;9:13-24. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1254
31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535
32. Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, et al. Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Study protocol. 2018. https://osf.io/xfg5n.
33. Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviewsEur J Clin Invest 2018;48:e12931. doi:10.1111/eci.12931
34. Melendez-Torres GJ, Thomas J, Lorenc T, O'Mara-Eves A, Petticrew M. Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: Re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods. Syst Rev 2018;7:153. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0821-7