RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

By G. Wong, Trisha Greenhalgh, G. Westhorp, J. Buckingham, R. Pawson. BMC Medicine, 2013

1,275 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundThere 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.MethodsWe (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.ResultsWe 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%.ConclusionThis 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.To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan). Please see related article http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/20 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/22

Subfields: General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e2d95d26caaa7c509fe6233903d005af5808bada

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Sociology and Political Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence (2017, background): “Realist synthesis [67, 68] To unpack how interventions work in particular contexts through theoretical explanation (middle-range theory).”
Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews (2015, methodology): “A more detailed discussion of data synthesis methods and publication standards within a realist framework can be found in Wong et al. [62], Pawson et al. [55], Shepperd et al. [59], Barnett-Page and Thomas [91], Pearson [92], and Popay [93].”
Realist review (2021, background): “…guidance, training and reporting standards on realist evaluation and synthesis) suggest that there is value in publishing and registering protocols (RAMESES II Project, 2017c) and RAMESES have published practical guidance and reporting standards for realist reviews (Wong et al., 2013, 2014).”
Unravelling quality culture in higher education: a realist review (2017, background): “Realism holds that mechanisms matter because they generate outcomes and that contextual elements should be taken into account since they influence the processes by which an intervention produces outcomes (Wong et al. 2013a).”
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review (2017, methodology): “These include the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) reporting standards [132, 133], the American Psychological Association Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS) [134], the ENTREQ Statement for syntheses of qualitative research [135], the RAMESES publication stan”
Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018, background): “A realist review considers the “generative causality,” in which particular mechanisms (for example, peer influence) produce particular outcomes (for example, smoking cessation) in some circumstances (for example, when societal disapproval of smoking is high) but not others (for example, in cultures ”
Scoping reviews: the PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting (2021, background): “(Noblit & Hare, 1988), while the purpose of a realist review is to determine what works, how and in what circumstances (Wong et al., 2013).”