RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

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.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

[1]  Jean-Louis Denis,et al.  Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. , 2010, The Milbank quarterly.

[2]  B. Paterson,et al.  Meta-study of qualitative health research : a practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis , 2001 .

[3]  Marianne W. Lewis,et al.  Metatriangulation: Building Theory from Multiple Paradigms , 1999 .

[4]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  Margarete Sandelowski,et al.  Mapping the Mixed Methods–Mixed Research Synthesis Terrain , 2012, Journal of mixed methods research.

[6]  G. Robert,et al.  Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. , 2004, The Milbank quarterly.

[7]  Greg Ogrinc,et al.  Publication guidelines for quality improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Sally Thorne,et al.  Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research , 2001 .

[9]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  Greg Ogrinc,et al.  Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE Project. , 2008, Annals of internal medicine.

[11]  Michelle E. Kho,et al.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care , 2010, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[12]  James Thomas,et al.  Bmc Medical Research Methodology Methods for the Synthesis of Qualitative Research: a Critical Review , 2022 .

[13]  Gene Feder,et al.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  P. Collins,et al.  The role of urban municipal governments in reducing health inequities: A meta-narrative mapping analysis , 2010, International journal for equity in health.

[15]  D. Gough,et al.  Clarifying differences between review designs and methods , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[16]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[17]  Sally Thorne,et al.  Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research: A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis , 2001 .

[18]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. , 2012, International journal of surgery.

[19]  D. Swinglehurst,et al.  Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. , 2009, The Milbank quarterly.

[20]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. , 2005, Social science & medicine.

[21]  T. Kuhn.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago (University of Chicago Press) 1962. , 1962 .

[22]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  Measuring quality in the therapeutic relationship—Part 1: objective approaches , 2010, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[23]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[24]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[25]  J. Popay,et al.  Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.