Narrative reviews.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bae JM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4207097 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMeta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review. A meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. No previous publication standards exist for the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. This publication standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for meta-narrative reviews.MethodsWe (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in meta-narrative reviews; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published reviews, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, meta-narrative reviews, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing meta-narrative reviews and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards.ResultsWe identified nine published meta-narrative reviews, provided real-time support to four ongoing reviews and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 33 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 20 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90%.ConclusionThis project used multiple sources to draw together evidence and expertise in meta-narrative reviews. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Meta-narrative review is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further theoretical and methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of meta-narrative reviews.
| S-EPMC3558334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There has been recent debate regarding the efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of depression. This has been based on narrative reviews that contradict existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In this special article, we highlight the mistakes that occur when interpreting evidence using narrative reviews, as opposed to conventional systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
| S-EPMC8851059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews may provide less biased evidence than narrative reviews because they observe a strict methodology, similarly to primary studies. Hence, for clinical research questions, systematic reviews should be the study design of choice. It would be important to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals. Researchers and clinicians give great value to articles published in such scientific journals. This study sought to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews in the five highest-ranked general medical journals and investigate the associations among type of review, number of citations, and impact factor (IF).MethodsWe surveyed the five highest-ranked medical journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine) for narrative and systematic reviews published between June 2015 and June 2016. We independently selected and extracted the data from the reviews by strictly following the pre-determined eligibility criteria (Systematic and narrative reviews that focused on the management of diseases). We conducted regression analyses to investigate the associations among review type, number of citations, and IF. We also descriptively reported narrative reviews containing some methodology that might be reproducible.ResultsTwo hundred seventy-five reviews were included: 75 (27%) systematic; 126 (46%) narrative with some methodology reported, and 74 (27%) narrative reviews. In comparison to systematic reviews, narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF (risk ratio [RR]?=?1.114 (95% CI 1.080 to 1.149). Systematic reviews received more citations than narrative reviews (group formed by narrative and narrative with some methodology reported (RR?=?0.985 95% CI 0.978 to 0.991).ConclusionsNon-systematic evidence is the most prevalent type of evidence in reviews published in the five highest-ranked general medical journals. Narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF. We recommend that journals limit their space for narrative information, and to address clinical research questions, these journals consider publishing systematic evidence exclusively.
| S-EPMC5746017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the adequacy of reporting and conduct of narrative synthesis of quantitative data (NS) in reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:A retrospective comparison of a 20% (n = 474/2,372) random sample of public health systematic reviews from the McMaster Health Evidence database (January 2010-October 2015) to establish the proportion of reviews using NS. From those reviews using NS, 30% (n = 75/251) were randomly selected and data were extracted for detailed assessment of: reporting NS methods, management and investigation of heterogeneity, transparency of data presentation, and assessment of robustness of the synthesis. RESULTS:Most reviews used NS (56%, n = 251/446); meta-analysis was the primary method of synthesis for 44%. In the detailed assessment of NS, 95% (n = 71/75) did not describe NS methods; 43% (n = 32) did not provide transparent links between the synthesis data and the synthesis reported in the text; of 14 reviews that identified heterogeneity in direction of effect, only one investigated the heterogeneity; and 36% (n = 27) did not reflect on limitations of the synthesis. CONCLUSION:NS methods are rarely reported in systematic reviews of public health interventions and many NS reviews lack transparency in how the data are presented and the conclusions are reached. This threatens the validity of much of the evidence synthesis used to support public health. Improved guidance on reporting and conduct of NS will contribute to improved utility of NS systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC6327109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe cultural determinants of health centre an Indigenous definition of health, and have been linked to positive health and wellbeing outcomes. There is growing evidence for the importance of the cultural determinants of health; however, to date, no high-level overview of the evidence-base has been provided. Synthesising existing literature on cultural determinants of health for Aboriginal peoples in a single manuscript will highlight what we know, and what needs to be explored in future research. It will also contribute to global efforts to capture the evidence of cultural determinant approaches amongst Indigenous populations. We therefore endeavoured to identify cultural determinants and highlight their impact on Aboriginal health and wellbeing outcomes, and outline the relationship and interconnection of different cultural determinants of health.MethodsAn overview of reviews was conducted. Medline (Ovid) and Scopus were searched using terms related to 'cultural determinants of health' and an 'Aboriginal definition of health'. The database search was complemented by a web-based search of grey literature. Nine reviews were retrieved and included in our overview.ResultsFamily/community, Country and place, cultural identity and self-determination were strongly identified across reviews as having a positive impact on the health and wellbeing outcomes of Aboriginal peoples. Family/community and Country and place were found to be components of 'culture' that shaped cultural identity. Self-determination was outlined as a requirement for Aboriginal peoples to pursue their cultural, social, and economic rights.Discussion/conclusionsCultural determinants are associated with health benefits for Indigenous peoples. A causal framework, developed to discuss the relationship and interconnection of the cultural determinants of health, demonstrates that cultural identity at an individual-level is important to benefiting from other cultural determinants of health. While self-determination and connection to culture and community-controlled organisations are integral factors to increase Aboriginal resilience and resistance and improve health and wellbeing outcomes. Further research is required to shift towards a multi-level understanding of the cultural determinants of health and to develop an Indigenous-led evidence-base around causal pathways. Such a shift would ensure priorities important to Indigenous peoples are captured in policy and practice.
| S-EPMC8359545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePatient-centred care has become a priority in many countries. It is unknown whether current tools capture aspects of care patients and their surrogates consider important. We investigated whether online narrative reviews from patients and surrogates reflect domains in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and we described additional potential domains.DesignWe used thematic analysis to assess online narrative reviews for reference to HCAHPS domains and salient non-HCAHPS domains and compared results by reviewer type (patient vs surrogate).SettingWe identified hospitals for review from the American Hospital Association database using a stratified random sampling approach. This approach ensured inclusion of reviews of a diverse set of hospitals. We searched online in February 2013 for narrative reviews from any source for each hospital.ParticipantsWe included up to two narrative reviews for each hospital.ExclusionsOutpatient or emergency department reviews, reviews from self-identified hospital employees, or reviews of <10 words.Results50.0% (n=122) of reviews (N=244) were from patients and 38.1% (n=93) from friends or family members. Only 57.0% (n=139) of reviews mentioned any HCAHPS domain. Additional salient domains were: Financing, including unexpected out-of-pocket costs and difficult interactions with billing departments; system-centred care; and perceptions of safety. These domains were mentioned in 51.2% (n=125) of reviews. Friends and family members commented on perceptions of safety more frequently than patients.ConclusionsA substantial proportion of consumer reviews do not mention HCAHPS domains. Surrogates appear to observe care differently than patients, particularly around safety.
| S-EPMC5360532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Using Toulmin's argumentation theory, we analysed the texts of systematic reviews in the area of workplace health promotion to explore differences in the modes of reasoning embedded in reports of narrative synthesis as compared with reports of meta-analysis. We used framework synthesis, grounded theory and cross-case analysis methods to analyse 85 systematic reviews addressing intervention effectiveness in workplace health promotion. Two core categories, or 'modes of reasoning', emerged to frame the contrast between narrative synthesis and meta-analysis: practical-configurational reasoning in narrative synthesis ('what is going on here? What picture emerges?') and inferential-predictive reasoning in meta-analysis ('does it work, and how well? Will it work again?'). Modes of reasoning examined quality and consistency of the included evidence differently. Meta-analyses clearly distinguished between warrant and claim, whereas narrative syntheses often presented joint warrant-claims. Narrative syntheses and meta-analyses represent different modes of reasoning. Systematic reviewers are likely to be addressing research questions in different ways with each method. It is important to consider narrative synthesis in its own right as a method and to develop specific quality criteria and understandings of how it is carried out, not merely as a complement to, or second-best option for, meta-analysis. © 2016 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
| S-EPMC5347877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews.DesignSystematic review.Eligibility criteriaStudies that compared the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (eg, recommending a drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces (eg, editorials), or narrative reviews.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register (from inception to February 2020), reference lists, Web of Science, and grey literature.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using random effects models (relative risk >1 indicates that documents with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations than documents with no conflicts of interest). Financial and non-financial conflicts of interest were analysed separately, and the four types of documents were analysed separately (preplanned) and combined (post hoc).Results21 studies that analysed 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews were included. Unpublished data were received for 11 studies (eight full datasets and three summary datasets). 15 studies showed risk of confounding because the compared documents could differ in factors other than conflicts of interest (eg, different drugs used for different populations). The relative risk for associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations for clinical guidelines was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.69; four studies of 86 clinical guidelines), for advisory committee reports was 1.20 (0.99 to 1.45; four studies of 629 advisory committee reports), for opinion pieces was 2.62 (0.91 to 7.55; four studies of 284 opinion pieces), and for narrative reviews was 1.20 (0.97 to 1.49; four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis of all four types of documents combined supported these findings (1.26, 1.09 to 1.44). In one study that investigated specialty interests, the association between including radiologists as authors of guidelines and recommending routine breast cancer was: relative risk 2.10, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 4.77; 12 clinical guidelines).ConclusionsWe interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. Limitations of this review were risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest influence recommendations.Systematic review registrationCochrane Methodology Review Protocol MR000040.
| S-EPMC8030127 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over 2 decades of research indicate the significance of racial or ethnic disparities in mental illness in the United States. However, minoritized racial or ethnic groups tend to report overall lower prevalence rates of psychiatric disorders than White adults, although this varies depending on gender and race or ethnicity. We conducted a rigorous and systematic narrative synthesis on the differences in the prevalence rates and symptoms that differ across racial or ethnic women in depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and premenstrual syndrome or premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Seven systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined racial/ethnic differences in depression and eating disorders were included. No review that examined racial/ethnic differences in anxiety or premenstrual syndrome or premenstrual dysphoric disorder met inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of the reviews, which was determined by the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews criteria, revealed that the results of 5 reviews were rated as critically low confidence, one review was rated as low confidence, and one review was rated as high confidence. Findings were inconsistent across systematic reviews and meta-analyses because of the methodological differences in the original studies. Overall, racially or ethnically minoritized women generally report lower prevalence rates in depressive and eating disorders than the White women; however, they exhibit different or greater symptom presentation that could influence prevalence estimates depending on the diagnostic criteria followed. Methodological considerations are provided to strengthen the literature on racial or ethnic mental health disparities in women.
| S-EPMC10754063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOutcome selection in intervention studies is a critical issue for synthesizing evidence. This study is aimed to investigate outcomes used in Cochrane reviews assessing community-based psychosocial interventions for adults with severe mental illness.MethodsCochrane reviews that evaluated a community-based psychosocial intervention for adults with severe mental illness were searched electronically and manually. We extracted all outcomes specified in the Methods section in each Cochrane review. Outcomes that represent the same concept and context were synthesized into an outcome term. Outcome terms were categorized according to the existing taxonomy.ResultsWe included 33 Cochrane reviews. Of the 216 outcome terms identified, 13 were used in more than half of the reviews: quality of life, mental state, admission to hospital, economic outcome, leaving the study early, social functioning, satisfaction, global state, relapse, adverse events/effects, carer satisfaction, employment, and duration of admission. Most outcome terms were categorized into the life impact core area (55%), followed by the resource use area (21%).ConclusionsOur study provides a candidate outcome list for developing a core outcome set for severe mental illness and offers a basis for comparison for future outcome investigation on mental health research.
| S-EPMC8698675 | biostudies-literature