RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

2013· article· en· 1 347 citations· W2120732572 sur OpenAlex· 10.1186/1741-7015-11-21

Pourquoi ce travail est-il dans la base ?

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

Affiliation canadienneUne personne signataire a déclaré un établissement canadien. C'est la seule voie dont dispose la base habituelle.

Organisme subventionnaire canadienUn organisme canadien l'a financé. Le travail peut ne porter aucune affiliation canadienne.

Scores machine (provisoires)

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Tête enseignante Opus0,673

Tête enseignante GPT0,679

Écart entre enseignants: 0,006 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validation: score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Résumé

BACKGROUND: 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. No previous publication standards exist for reporting realist syntheses. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for realist systematic reviews. METHODS: We (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist syntheses; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published syntheses, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, realist research, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing realist syntheses and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence syntheses and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards. RESULTS: We identified 35 published realist syntheses, provided real-time support to 9 on-going syntheses and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 37 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 19 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 91%. CONCLUSION: This project used multiple sources to develop and draw together evidence and expertise in realist synthesis. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Realist synthesis is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of realist syntheses.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

La notice

Revue: BMC Medicine
Thématique: Health Policy Implementation Science
Domaine: Health Professions
Établissements canadiens: University of Alberta
Organismes subventionnaires: Health Services and Delivery Research ProgrammeMenzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of LondonUniversity of WaterlooQueen's UniversityUniversity College LondonUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityUniversiteit MaastrichtUniversity of LeedsNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchQueen Mary University of LondonMcGill UniversityUniversity of South AustraliaUniversity of East London
Mots-clés: Set (abstract data type)Systematic reviewDelphi methodEngineering ethicsPublishingMedicineManagement scienceDelphiRigourData scienceComputer scienceMEDLINEEpistemologyPolitical scienceLaw
Résumé présent dans OpenAlex: oui
API: /api/v1/works/W2120732572