Healthcare Innovation and Policy Unit, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London E1 2AB, UK.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Aug 16;11:115. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-115.
There is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review as an alternative to (or to extend and supplement) conventional Cochrane-style reviews. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. However, the quality of such reviews can be difficult to assess. This study aims to produce methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for those seeking to use the realist and/or meta-narrative approach to systematic review.
METHODS/DESIGN: We will: [a] collate and summarise existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic review; [b] consider the extent to which these principles have been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; [c] using an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; [d] produce training materials with learning outcomes linked to these steps; [e] pilot these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews-in-progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arise; [f] synthesise expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards; [g] disseminate outputs to audiences in academia and policy. The outputs of the study will be threefold:1. Quality standards and methodological guidance for realist and meta-narrative reviews for use by researchers, research sponsors, students and supervisors2. A 'RAMESES' (Realist and Meta-review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards) statement (comparable to CONSORT or PRISMA) of publication standards for such reviews, published in an open-access academic journal.3. A training module for researchers, including learning outcomes, outline course materials and assessment criteria.
Realist and meta-narrative review are relatively new approaches to systematic review whose overall place in the secondary research toolkit is not yet fully established. As with all secondary research methods, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency of studies.
人们对基于理论的、定性的和混合方法的系统评价越来越感兴趣，这些方法可作为（或扩展和补充）传统的 Cochrane 式评价。这些方法有可能扩展政策相关领域的知识库，例如通过解释复杂干预措施的成功、失败或好坏参半的原因。然而，此类评价的质量可能难以评估。本研究旨在为那些希望使用现实主义和/或元叙述系统评价方法的人提供方法学指导、出版标准和培训资源。
方法/设计：我们将：[a] 整理和总结现有的关于现实主义和元叙述系统评价良好实践原则的文献；[b] 考虑这些原则在已发表和正在进行的评价中被遵循的程度，从而确定严谨性如何丧失以及现有方法如何改进；[c] 使用在线德尔菲法，由学术界和政策制定领域的跨学科专家小组制定一份方法步骤和出版标准草案；[d] 制作与这些步骤相关的培训材料，以学习成果为导向；[e] 在真实的进行中的评价中对这些标准和培训材料进行前瞻性试点，记录出现的方法和其他挑战；[f] 将专家意见、证据综述和实时问题分析综合成更明确的指导和标准；[g] 将研究成果传播给学术界和政策制定领域的受众。本研究的产出将有三个方面：1. 为研究人员、研究赞助商、学生和导师提供用于现实主义和元叙述评价的质量标准和方法学指导；2. 在开放获取的学术期刊上发表关于此类评价的“RAMESES（现实主义和元综述证据综合：不断发展的标准）”声明（类似于 CONSORT 或 PRISMA）的出版标准；3. 为研究人员提供培训模块，包括学习成果、课程材料大纲和评估标准。
现实主义和元叙述评价是系统评价的相对较新方法，其在二次研究工具包中的总体地位尚未完全确定。与所有二次研究方法一样，关于质量保证和统一报告的指南是提高研究质量和一致性的重要步骤。
