+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

Bmc Medicine 11(): 20-20

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.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055333082

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23360661

DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-20

Related references

Meta-narrative and realist reviews: guidance, rules, publication standards and quality appraisal. Bmc Medicine 11: 22-22, 2013

Protocol--realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES). Bmc Medical Research Methodology 11(): 115-115, 2011

RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. Bmc Medicine 11(): 21-21, 2013

Research synthesis in veterinary science: Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Veterinary Journal 206(3): 261-267, 2015

Going Beyond Systematic Reviews: Realist and Meta-Narrative Reviews. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 222: 275-287, 2016

Meta-analysis of quasi-experimental research: are systematic narrative reviews indicated?. Medical Education 42(9): 858-865, 2008

From narrative to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in assessing the effectiveness of psychiatric treatments. Epidemiologia E Psichiatria Sociale 12(3): 135-136, 2003

Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of Dermatological Science 82(2): 69-74, 2016

Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Statistics in Medicine 34(20): 2781-2793, 2016

Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation. Research Synthesis Methods (): -, 2016

The rameses algorithm for multiple equilibria-III Acceleration and standardized formation constants (RAMESES II). Talanta 37(4): 425-429, 1990

PRISMA declaration: a proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medicina Clinica 135(11): 507-511, 2011

The RAMESES algorithm for multiple equilibria-IV. Strategies for improvement (RAMESES III). Talanta 38(8): 875-888, 1991

Meta-analyses need new publication standards. Journal of Clinical Oncology 10(6): 878-880, 1992

Cochrane reviews compared with industry-supported and other meta-analyses of the same drugs--secondary publication. Ugeskrift for Laeger 168(48): 4218-4220, 2006