AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 4: selecting analytic approaches

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorViswanathan, Meeraen
dc.contributor.authorMcPheeters, Melissa L.en
dc.contributor.authorHassan-Murad, M.en
dc.contributor.authorButler, Mary E.en
dc.contributor.authorDevin, Emily E. (Beth)en
dc.contributor.authorDyson, Michele P.en
dc.contributor.authorGuise, Jeanne -Marieen
dc.contributor.authorKahwati, Leila C.en
dc.contributor.authorMiles, Jeremy N. V.en
dc.contributor.authorMorton, Sally C.en
dc.contributor.departmentStatisticsen
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-19T13:06:54Zen
dc.date.available2019-09-19T13:06:54Zen
dc.date.issued2017-10en
dc.description.abstractBackground: Systematic reviews of complex interventions can vary widely in purpose, data availability and heterogeneity, and stakeholder expectations. Rationale: This article addresses the uncertainty that systematic reviewers face in selecting methods for reviews of complex interventions. Specifically, it lays out parameters for systematic reviewers to consider when selecting analytic approaches that best answer the questions at hand and suggests analytic techniques that may be appropriate in different circumstances. Discussion: Systematic reviews of complex interventions comprising multiple questions may use multiple analytic approaches. Parameters to consider when choosing analytic methods for complex interventions include nature and timing of the decision (clinical practice guideline, policy, or other); purpose of the review; extent of existing evidence; logistic factors such as the timeline, process, and resources for deciding the scope of the review; and value of information to be obtained from choosing specific systematic review methods. Reviewers may elect to revise their analytic approach based on new or changing considerations during the course of the review but should guard against bias through transparency of reporting. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.en
dc.description.notesThis project was funded under contract no. HHSA290201200004C from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.en
dc.description.sponsorshipAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHSA290201200004C]en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.014en
dc.identifier.eissn1878-5921en
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356en
dc.identifier.pmid29248724en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/93771en
dc.identifier.volume90en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en
dc.subjectComplex interventionsen
dc.subjectEvidence-based medicineen
dc.subjectReview literature as topicen
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen
dc.subjectQualitative researchen
dc.subjectResearch designen
dc.titleAHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 4: selecting analytic approachesen
dc.title.serialJournal of Clinical Epidemiologyen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
dc.type.dcmitypeStillImageen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s2.0-S089543561730639X-main.pdf
Size:
696.51 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Statistics