Testing Methodological Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis 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.

[1]  Further Particulars,et al.  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , 2007 .

[2]  T. Greenhalgh.  Meta‐Narrative Mapping: A New Approach to the Systematic Review of Complex Evidence , 2008 .

[3]  Jennie Popay,et al.  Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1 , 2006 .

[4]  Mary Dixon-Woods,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[5]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta‐Analysis , 2008 .

[6]  R. Hanka.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1994 .

[7]  D. Kendrick,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of general practitioner safety advice for families with children under 5 years , 1998, BMJ.

[8]  Helen Roberts,et al.  Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews Final Report , 2005 .

[9]  C. DiGuiseppi,et al.  Interventions for promoting smoke alarm ownership and function. , 2001, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Realist synthesis - an introduction , 2004 .

[11]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1995 .

[12]  Keith R Abrams,et al.  Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: a Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence , 2002, The Lancet.

[13]  Jenny Donovan,et al.  Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[14]  Constantine Gatsonis,et al.  Analysing and Presenting Results , 2010 .

[15]  I B Pless,et al.  The effectiveness of a home visit to prevent childhood injury. , 2001, Pediatrics.

[16]  E R Christophersen,et al.  Evaluation of group well-child care for improving burn prevention practices in the home. , 1984, Pediatrics.

[17]  R. Stanwick,et al.  A randomized single-blind evaluation of a discharge teaching book for pediatric patients with burns. , 1996, The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation.

[18]  P. Mccarthy,et al.  Safety education in a pediatric primary care setting. , 1987, Pediatrics.

[19]  P Marsh,et al.  Preventing injuries in children: cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care , 1999, BMJ.

[20]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[21]  Jennie Popay,et al.  Testing methodological developments in the conduct of narrative synthesis: a demonstration review of research on the implementation of smoke alarm interventions , 2007 .