The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

/pdf/preferred-reporting-items-for-systematic-review-and-meta-mgb1uy0yle.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Diversity in Britain is not what it used to be. Some thirty years of government policies, social service practices and public perceptions have been framed by a particular understanding of immigration and multicultural diversity. That is, Britain's immigrant and ethnic minority population has conventionally been characterized by large, well-organized African-Caribbean and South Asian communities of citizens originally from Commonwealth countries or formerly colonial territories. Policy frameworks and public understanding – and, indeed, many areas of social science – have not caught up with recently emergent demographic and social patterns. Britain can now be characterized by ‘super-diversity,’ a notion intended to underline a level and kind of complexity surpassing anything the country has previously experienced. Such a condition is distinguished by a dynamic interplay of variables among an increased number of new, small and scattered, multiple-origin, transnationally connected, socio-economically...

/pdf/super-diversity-and-its-implications-nju0rs6vjr.pdf

Super-diversity and its implications

Titles & abstract s Titles & abstracts Include N=54 Include N=121 Include N=89 Exclude N = 0 Exclude N = 1,024 Exclude N = 21

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1

Peter Craig, MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network Paul Dieppe, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Oxford Sally Macintyre, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit Susan Michie, Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, University College London Irwin Nazareth, MRC General Practice Research Framework Mark Petticrew, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews

The inclusion of qualitative studies in systematic reviews poses methodological challenges. This paper presents worked examples of two methods of data synthesis (textual narrative and thematic), used in relation to one review, with the aim of enabling researchers to consider the strength of different approaches. A systematic review of lay perspectives of infant size and growth was conducted, locating 19 studies (including both qualitative and quantitative). The data extracted from these were synthesised using both a textual narrative and a thematic synthesis. The processes of both methods are presented, showing a stepwise progression to the final synthesis. Both methods led us to similar conclusions about lay views toward infant size and growth. Differences between methods lie in the way they dealt with study quality and heterogeneity. On the basis of the work reported here, we consider textual narrative and thematic synthesis have strengths and weaknesses in relation to different research questions. Thematic synthesis holds most potential for hypothesis generation, but may obscure heterogeneity and quality appraisal. Textual narrative synthesis is better able to describe the scope of existing research and account for the strength of evidence, but is less good at identifying commonality.

/pdf/worked-examples-of-alternative-methods-for-the-synthesis-of-4fcoc9gi1y.pdf

Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews

The objective was to assess the impact of new guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews of effectiveness, by means of a blinded comparison of guidance-led narrative synthesis against a meta-analysis of the same study data.The conclusions of the two syntheses were broadly similar. However, differences between the approaches meant that conclusions about the impact of moderators of effect appeared stronger when derived from the meta-analysis, whereas implications for future research appeared more extensive when derived from the narrative synthesis. These findings emphasize that a rigorously conducted narrative synthesis can add meaning and value to the findings of meta-analysis.The guidance framework provided a useful vehicle for structuring a narrative synthesis and increasing transparency and rigour of the process.While there may be risks with overinterpretation of study data, the framework, tools and techniques described in the guidance appear to increase the transparency and reproducibility of narrative synthesis.

Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function.

In the context of systematic reviews, statistical meta-analysis of findings is not always possible. Where this is the case, or where a review of implementation evidence is required, narrative synthesis of data is typically undertaken. Drawing on recently developed guidance aimed at those undertaking data synthesis - and information on the implementation of domestic smoke detectors - we present findings from a demonstration of the tools and techniques that can be used in a narrative synthesis. The work demonstrates how this process can be made more transparent, and suggests that using the tools and techniques can improve the quality of narrative synthesis.

Testing methodological developments in the conduct of narrative synthesis: a demonstration review of research on the implementation of smoke alarm interventions

Lisa Arai

Papers

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews

Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews

Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function.

Testing methodological developments in the conduct of narrative synthesis: a demonstration review of research on the implementation of smoke alarm interventions