Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions
BMJ 2017; 358 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2998 (Published 20 July 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;358:j2998
All rapid responses
This guidance from Hoffmann and colleagues for reporting interventions in systematic reviews is widely applicable and likely to be useful to many readers.
Previously, we developed a tool that could be used in conjunction with this guidance.
The Oxford Implementation Index (OII) helps systematic reviewers address intervention (1) design, (2) delivery, (3) uptake, and (4) context.
Within trials, interventions may not be implemented exactly as intended. Thus, it is important to distinguish what was intended (i.e., in the trial protocol) from what actually happened (i.e., what providers and participants did in practice). Across trials, implementation may be a source of heterogeneity (e.g., for complex interventions), so reviewers should consider how differences in design, delivery, or uptake might affect the overall results. Finally, the context in which interventions are implemented might affect their comparative effectiveness or generalizability. Systematic reviewers should consider contextual similarities and differences across trials, and they should identify to whom and under what circumstances the results of systematic reviews might apply.
OII provides a framework that can be used in conjunction with the new guidance from Hoffmann and colleagues to help systematic reviewers address intervention implementation in their protocols, extract intervention details, incorporate intervention characteristics in analyses, and compare interventions across trials.
Evan Mayo-Wilson
Sean Grant
Paul Montgomery
Montgomery P, Underhill K, Operario D, Gardner F, Mayo-Wilson E (2013). The Oxford Implementation Index: A new tool for incorporating implementation data into systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 66(8): 874-882. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.006
Competing interests: No competing interests
One of the main problems of reviews is that reliable and unreliable papers are reviewed together. There seems to be no reliable methods to distinguish between reliable and unreliable, biased and unbiased, conflicted and unconflicted studies. A reproducible study can be distinguished from irreproducible one by verification; but no guarantee that the verifying study is not biased or conflicted.
More details: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317036805_Scientific_misconduct...
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions
A systematic review which aims to answer a research question by assessing and synthesizing the relevant and available primary studies. With the methodology development of systematic review, Systematic reviews have become increasingly important in health care, there is a rapidly increase of systematic review, but the reporting quality of systematic review is not great. Although after PRISMA was released, the situation has been improved, but some problems were always existed. Your work “Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions” points that the complete reporting of interventions in systematic reviews is very important for the usability of conclusions of systematic reviews and reducing bioresearch waste. After reading the work, we know the systematic reviews should report the effective components of interventions and is the key to assess the value of conclusions of systematic reviews and help the clinicians to apply in practice. And I think it is very necessary for the complex intervention of systematic review, and complex intervention always happen to the system level. Especially, the Chinese herb of systematic review, traditional Chinese medicine often use some herbs to cure one disease at the same time, so, regard to this kind of systematic review should report more complete and should define definite criterion.
Competing interests: No competing interests