New publication guidelines for systematic reviews from BMC Medicine

Two articles in BioMed Central's open access journal BMC Medicine by Geoff Wong, Trisha Greenhalgh and colleagues, propose publication guidelines for both realist synthesis and meta-narrative reviews.

These are the first set of extensive guidelines covering the two types of analysis and will be invaluable to clinical researchers as well as journal editors. The standards were developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses Evolving Standards) project. The RAMESES project is a NIHR funded to produce such guidance and standards for these new forms of systematic review - Realist synthesis and Meta-narrative . The guidelines are co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and are freely accessible on Wiley Online Library.

There is growing interest in realist synthesis as an alternative systematic review method. This approach offers the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas - for example by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. Meta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review.

A systematic review is a review done according to an explicit, robust and reproducible methodology. Author Geoff Wong explains, "For many years reviewers undertaking Cochrane reviews and meta-analyses have followed the PRISMA publication guidelines. Other forms of , oriented to summarising and synthesising quantitative, qualitative and/or mixed-method studies, are increasing in popularity, especially in the context of , but such approaches have up to now suffered from lack of systematic guidance or publication standards."

These new guidelines for realist synthesis and meta-narrative reviews are also expected to be welcomed by , as Jigisha Patel, Medical Editor at explains, "The provision of a clear set of publication reporting standards is important for researchers, editors and, most importantly, reviewers. By defining a standard framework for researchers to report their methods and findings they aid thorough peer-review and ensure that published research is consistent in its methodology. The RAMESES publication provides much needed clarity for these new forms of literature analysis, and the upcoming publication of quality assessment tools will be needed to complement these before researchers can follow the guidelines fully "

More information: Wong G., Greenhalgh T. , Westhorp G., Buckingham J . & Pawson R. (2013) RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing ,doi: 10.1111/jan.12092.

Wong G., Greenhalgh T. , Westhorp G., Buckingham J . & Pawson R. (2013) RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, doi: 10.1111/jan.12095

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

How should systematic reviews consider evidence on harms?

May 03, 2011

Systematic reviews that attempt to assess the risk of harms (adverse effects) associated with specific therapies should consider a broad range of study designs, including both systematic reviews and observational studies. ...

To publish or not to publish? That is the question

May 21, 2010

For more than 50 years medical research has been vetted through the peer-review process overseen by medical journal editors who assign reviewers to determine whether work merits publication. A study published in PLoS One invest ...

Recommended for you

User comments