Identifying evidence for five realist reviews in primary health care: A comparison of search methods.
grey literature
information retrieval
literature searching
primary health care
realist review
realist synthesis
Journal
Research synthesis methods
ISSN: 1759-2887
Titre abrégé: Res Synth Methods
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101543738
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
revised:
28
06
2021
received:
19
03
2021
accepted:
20
08
2021
pubmed:
9
9
2021
medline:
12
3
2022
entrez:
8
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The approach to identifying evidence for inclusion in realist reviews differs from that used in 'traditional' systematic reviews. Guidance suggests that realist reviews should be inclusive of diverse data from a range of sources, gathered in iterative searching cycles. Saturation is prioritised over exhaustiveness. Supplementary techniques such as citation snowballing are emphasised as potentially important sources of evidence. This paper describes the processes used to identify evidence in a selection of realist reviews focused on primary health care settings and examines the origin and type of evidence selected for inclusion. Data from five realist reviews were extracted from (a) reviewers' reference management libraries and (b) records kept by review teams. Although all reviews focused on primary health care, they used data from a wide range of document types and research designs, drawing on learning from multiple perspectives and settings, and sourced the documents containing this data in a variety of ways. Systematic searching of academic databases played an important role, supplementary search techniques such as snowballing were used to identify a significant proportion of documents included in the reviews. Our analysis demonstrates the diverse data sources used within realist reviews and the need for flexible, responsive efforts to identify relevant documents. Reviewers and information specialists should devise approaches to data gathering that reflect the individual needs of realist review projects and report these transparently.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
190-203Subventions
Organisme : NIHR Systematic Reviews Fellowship
ID : NIHR-RM-SR-2017-08-018
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Booth A, Briscoe S, Wright JM. The “realist search”: a systematic scoping review of current practice and reporting. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(1):14-35.
Wong G. The rise and rise of realist reviews? In Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Blog; 2019.
Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, et al. Chapter 4: searching for and selecting studies. In: JPT H, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1 (Updated September 2020), Cochrane; 2020.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. CRD, University of York; 2009.
Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S. In: Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds. Standards for Finding and Assessing Individual Studies. National Academies Press (US); 2011.
Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: addressing reporting biases. In: JPT H, Green S, eds. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:MR000006.
Hopewell S, Clarke MJ, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000011.
Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M. Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;8:MR000026.
Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias-an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e66844.
Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:MR000031.
Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(02):138-144.
Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, Schmid CH, Dahabreh IJ. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(9):1076-1084.
Schoones JW, Vissers T. Re: “using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions”. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;78:127-127.
Booth A. Over 85% of included studies in systematic reviews are on MEDLINE. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:165-166.
Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A. Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19(1):168-178.
Doree C, Elke H, Mathsien M, Waffenschmidt S. Value of using different search approaches. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Vortal; 2017.
Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331(7524):1064-1065.
Booth A, Harris J, Croot E, Springett J, Campbell F, WIlkins E. Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(118).
Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016;5(74).
Campbell M, Egan M, Lorenc T, et al. Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):114-114.
Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R, Greenhalgh T. Realist synthesis: RAMESES training materials; 2013.
Pawson R. Realist synthesis: New Protocols for Systematic Review. SAGE; 2006:73-104.
Booth A, Wright J, Briscoe S. In: Emmel N, Greenhalgh J, Manzano A, Monaghan M, Dalkin S, eds. Scoping and Searching to Support Realist Approaches. SAGE; 2018:148-165.
Hanneke R, Young SK. Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):156-156.
Armstrong R, Waters E. Systematic reviews of health promotion and public health interventions (Presentation); 2007.
von Hippel E, Franke N, Prügl R. Pyramiding: efficient search for rare subjects. Res Pol. 2009;38(9):1397-1406.
Delaney A, Tamás PA. Searching for evidence or approval? A commentary on database search in systematic reviews and alternative information retrieval methodologies. Res Synth Method. 2017;9:124-131.
Howes F, Doyle J, Jackson N, Waters E. Evidence-based public health: the importance of finding ‘difficult to locate’ public health and health promotion intervention studies for systematic reviews. J Public Health. 2004;26(1):101-104.
Armstrong R, Jackson N, Doyle J, Waters E, Howes F. It's in your hands: the value of handsearching in conducting systematic reviews of public health interventions. J Public Health. 2005;27(4):388-391.
Grayson L, Gomersall A. A difficult business: finding the evidence for social science reviews; 2003.
Ogilvie D, Hamilton V, Egan M, Petticrew M. Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(9):804-808.
Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton V, Petticrew M, Ogilvie D. Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:886-892.
NIHR School of Primary Care Research. Evidence Synthesis Working Group; 2018. https://www.spcr.nihr.ac.uk/eswg/evidence-synthesis
Heneghan C. Improving the evidence base for primary care using evidence synthesis. In NIHR School of Primary Care Research Blog; 2018.
Wong G. Data gathering in realist reviews: looking for needles in haystacks. In: Emmel N, Greenhalgh J, Manzano A, Monaghan M, Dalkin S, eds. Doing Realist Research. SAGE; 2018:131-146.
Pawson R. Digging for nuggets: how ‘Bad’ research can yield ‘Good’ evidence. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006;9(2):1364-5579.
Berg RC, Nanavati J. Realist review: current practice and future prospects. J Res Pract. 2016;12(1).
Abrams R, Wong G, Mahtani KR, et al. Understanding the impact of delegated home visiting services accessed via general practice by community-dwelling patients: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(11):e024876.
Dixon S, Griffiths F, Ziebland S, Papoutsi C. English general medical practitioners managing female genital mutilation in light of recent policy and legislative changes: a realist synthesis. Prospero. 2018;CRD42018091996.
Duddy C, Wong G. Explaining variations in test ordering in primary care: protocol for a realist review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(9):e023117.
Grünwald L, Duddy C, Moncrieff J, Crellin N, Byng R. Facilitators and barriers of antipsychotic medication management in primary care: a realist review protocol. Prospero. 2018;CRD42018107573.
Tierney S, Wong G, Roberts NW, et al. The role of care navigators in primary care: a realist review (protocol). Prospero. 2018;CRD42018095090.
Abrams R, Wong G, Mahtani KR, et al. Delegating home visits in general practice: a realist review on the impact on GP workload and patient care. Br J Gen Pract. 2020;70(695):e412-e420.
Duddy C, Wong G. Efficiency over thoroughness in laboratory testing decision-making in primary care: findings from a realist review. BJGP Open. 2020;5(2):bjgpopen20X101146.
Tierney S, Wong G, Roberts N, et al. Supporting social prescribing in primary care by linking people to local assets: a realist review. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):49.
Grünwald LM, Duddy C, Byng R, Crellin N, Moncrieff J. The role of trust and hope in antipsychotic medication reviews between GPs and service users: a realist review. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21(390).
Dixon S, Duddy C, Harrison G, Papoutsi C, Ziebland S, Griffiths F. Conversations about FGM in primary care: a realist review on how, why, and under what circumstances FGM is discussed in general practice consultations. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e039809.
Tierney S, Abrams R. Getting the most from freedom of information requests as part of a realist review: finding treasure or futile endeavour? In: Research NSoPC, ed. NIHR School of Primary Care Research Blog; 2019.
Paez A. Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10(3):233-240.
Mahood Q, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(3):221-234.
Pawson R. Systematic obfuscation: a critical analysis of the meta-analytic approach. Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. SAGE; 2006:38-72.
Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of Google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to Grey literature searching. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138237.
Coleman S, Wright JM, Nixon J, Schoonhoven L, Twiddy M, Greenhalgh J. Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):217.