Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
A research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 66, No. 11, Year 2013
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Objectives: This article outlines a research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about interventions varying in degree and type of complexity. Study Design and Setting: Consensus development by key authors of articles on methodological challenges in systematic reviews of complex interventions, based on a 2-day workshop in Montebello, Canada, January 2012. Results: There is an urgent need for a more precise and consistently applied lexicon and language to disaggregate several conceptually distinct dimensions of "complexity." Selected current evidence synthesis methods have potential application in reviews where complexity is important. There is a lack of evaluation of methods to better understand the nature of complex interventions and the optimal processes of synthesizing and interpreting evidence from these systematic reviews. Gaps in methods, knowledge, and know-how exist, and there is a need for additional guidance. Conclusion: Understanding how complexity can impact on findings of systematic reviews is critical. Experience in applying methods that have been developed to facilitate this understanding is limited, and the degree to which these approaches improve the systematic review process or transparency is only partially understood. Future research should concentrate on the impact of complexity on the systematic review process and findings and on further methodological development. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors & Co-Authors
Noyes, Jane P.
Unknown Affiliation
Gough, D.
Unknown Affiliation
Lewin, Simon A.
Unknown Affiliation
Mayhew, Alain D.
Unknown Affiliation
Michie, Susan F.
Unknown Affiliation
Pantoja, Tomas
Unknown Affiliation
Petticrew, Mark P.
Unknown Affiliation
Pottie, Kevin C.
Unknown Affiliation
Rehfuess, Eva Annette
Unknown Affiliation
Shemilt, Ian
Unknown Affiliation
Shepperd, S.
Unknown Affiliation
Sowden, Amanda
Unknown Affiliation
Tugwell, Peter
Unknown Affiliation
Welch, Vivian A.
Unknown Affiliation
Statistics
Citations: 79
Authors: 14
Affiliations: 15
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.003
ISSN:
08954356
e-ISSN:
18785921
Study Approach
Systematic review