Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines

Accurate assessment is required to assess current and changing physical activity levels, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase activity levels. This study systematically reviewed the literature to determine the extent of agreement between subjectively (self-report e.g. questionnaire, diary) and objectively (directly measured; e.g. accelerometry, doubly labeled water) assessed physical activity in adults. Eight electronic databases were searched to identify observational and experimental studies of adult populations. Searching identified 4,463 potential articles. Initial screening found that 293 examined the relationship between self-reported and directly measured physical activity and met the eligibility criteria. Data abstraction was completed for 187 articles, which described comparable data and/or comparisons, while 76 articles lacked comparable data or comparisons, and a further 30 did not meet the review's eligibility requirements. A risk of bias assessment was conducted for all articles from which data was abstracted. Correlations between self-report and direct measures were generally low-to-moderate and ranged from -0.71 to 0.96. No clear pattern emerged for the mean differences between self-report and direct measures of physical activity. Trends differed by measure of physical activity employed, level of physical activity measured, and the gender of participants. Results of the risk of bias assessment indicated that 38% of the studies had lower quality scores. The findings suggest that the measurement method may have a significant impact on the observed levels of physical activity. Self-report measures of physical activity were both higher and lower than directly measured levels of physical activity, which poses a problem for both reliance on self-report measures and for attempts to correct for self-report – direct measure differences. This review reveals the need for valid, accurate and reliable measures of physical activity in evaluating current and changing physical activity levels, physical activity interventions, and the relationships between physical activity and health outcomes.

/pdf/a-comparison-of-direct-versus-self-report-measures-for-ebc2zoxerg.pdf

A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review

In systematic reviews that lack data amenable to meta-analysis, alternative synthesis methods are commonly used, but these methods are rarely reported. This lack of transparency in the methods can cast doubt on the validity of the review findings. The Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline has been developed to guide clear reporting in reviews of interventions in which alternative synthesis methods to meta-analysis of effect estimates are used. This article describes the development of the SWiM guideline for the synthesis of quantitative data of intervention effects and presents the nine SWiM reporting items with accompanying explanations and examples.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/368/bmj.l6890.full.pdf

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

A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients’ concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.

/pdf/patient-engagement-in-research-a-systematic-review-iwdizvcicm.pdf

Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

Author Ray Pawson presents a devastating critique of the dominant approach to systematic review namely the 'meta-analytic' approach as sponsored by the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations. In its place is commended an approach that he terms 'realist synthesis'. On this vision, the real purpose of systematic review is better to understand program theory, so that policies Author Ray Pawson presents a devastating critique of the dominant approach to systematic review namely the 'meta-analytic' approach as sponsored by the Cochrane and Campbell collaborations. In its place is commended an approach that he terms 'realist synthesis'. On this vision, the real purpose of systematic review is better to understand program theory, so that policies can be properly targeted and developed to counter an ever-changing landscape of social problems. The book will be essential reading for all those who loved (or loathed) the arguments developed in Realistic Evaluation (Sage, 1997). It offers a complete blueprint for research synthesis, supported by detailed illustrations and worked examples from across the policy waterfront.

Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective

There is growing interest in realist synthesis as an alternative systematic review method. This approach offers the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas -for example, by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. No previous publication standards exist for reporting realist syntheses. This 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 realist systematic reviews. We (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist syntheses; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published syntheses, 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, realist research, 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 realist syntheses and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence syntheses and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards. We identified 35 published realist syntheses, provided real-time support to 9 on-going syntheses 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 37 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 19 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 91%. This project used multiple sources to develop and draw together evidence and expertise in realist synthesis. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Realist synthesis 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 methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of realist syntheses. To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (
 http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan
 ). Please see related article http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/20
 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/22

/pdf/rameses-publication-standards-realist-syntheses-3dpibgm2lq.pdf

RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

Meta-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. We (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. We 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%. This 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. To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (
 http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan
 ). Please see related article http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/21
 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/22

/pdf/rameses-publication-standards-meta-narrative-reviews-evgeuidjow.pdf

RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

Background: There is growing interest in realist synthesis as an alternative systematic review method. This approach offers the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example, by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. No previous publication standards exist for reporting realist syntheses. This 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 realist systematic reviews. Methods: We (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist syntheses; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published syntheses, 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, realist research, 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 realist syntheses and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence syntheses and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards. Results: We identified 35 published realist syntheses, provided real-time support to 9 on-going syntheses 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 37 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 19 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 91%. Conclusion: This project used multiple sources to develop and draw together evidence and expertise in realist synthesis. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Realist synthesis 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 methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of realist syntheses. To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan). Please see related article http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/20 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/ 1741-7015/11/22

/pdf/rameses-publication-standards-realist-syntheses-8ndekw6yjq.pdf

Objectives To determine evidence-based best practices for elderly hip fracture patients from the time of hospital admission to 6 months postfracture Data sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro, Ageline, NARIC, and CIRRIE databases were searched for potentially eligible articles published between 1985 and 2004 Review methods Two independent reviewers determined studies appropriate for inclusion using standardized selection criteria, extracted data, evaluated internal validity, and then rated studies according to levels of evidence Only Level 1 or 2 evidence was included in our summary of clinical recommendations Results Spinal anesthesia, pressure-relieving mattresses, perioperative antibiotics, and deep vein thromboses prophylaxes had consistent evidence of benefit Routine preoperative traction was not associated with any benefits and should be abandoned Types of surgical management, postoperative wound drainage, and even "multidisciplinary" care, lacked sufficient evidence to determine either benefit or harm There was little evidence to either determine best subacute rehabilitation practices or to direct ongoing medical issues (eg, nutrition) Studies conducted during the subacute recovery period were heterogeneous in terms of treatment settings, interventions, and outcomes studied and had no clear evidence for best treatment practices Conclusions The evidence for perioperative practices is relatively robust and evidence-based perioperative treatment guidelines can be easily established Conversely, more evidence is required to better guide the care of elderly patients with hip fracture during the subacute recovery period and convalescence

/pdf/best-practices-for-elderly-hip-fracture-patients-a-eppb5q4ici.pdf

Best practices for elderly hip fracture patients. A systematic overview of the evidence.

Objective To determine the strength of evidence underlying recommendations for use of statins during the perioperative period to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Design Systematic review of studies with concurrent control groups.
 Data sources Four electronic databases, the references of identified studies, international experts on perioperative medicine, and the authors of the primary studies.
 Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data from studies that reported acute coronary syndromes or mortality in patients receiving or not receiving statins during the perioperative period.
 Main outcome measure Random effects summary odds ratios for death or acute coronary syndrome during the perioperative period.
 Results 18 studies—two randomised trials (n=177), 15 cohort studies (n=799 632), and one case-control study (n=480)—assessed whether statins provide perioperative cardiovascular protection; 12 studies enrolled patients undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery, four enrolled patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery, and two enrolled patients undergoing various surgical procedures. In the randomised trials the summary odds ratio for death or acute coronary syndrome during the perioperative period with statin use was 0.26 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.99) and the summary odds ratio in the cohort studies was 0.70 (0.57 to 0.87). Although the pooled cohort data provided a statistically significant result, statins were not randomly allocated, results in retrospective studies were larger (odds ratio 0.65, 0.50 to 0.84) than those in the prospective cohorts (0.91, 0.65 to 1.27), and dose, duration, and safety of statin use was not reported.
 Conclusion The evidence base for routine administration of statins to reduce perioperative cardiovascular risk is inadequate.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/333/7579/1149.full.pdf

Jeanette Buckingham

Papers

RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

Best practices for elderly hip fracture patients. A systematic overview of the evidence.

Strength of evidence for perioperative use of statins to reduce cardiovascular risk: systematic review of controlled studies