Background:

There is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review, such as realist and meta-narrative review. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas. However, the quality of such reviews can be difficult to assess.

Objectives:

The aim of this project was to produce methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for those seeking to undertake realist and/or meta-narrative reviews.

Methods/design:

We (1) collated and summarised existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic reviews; (2) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may have been lost and how existing methods could be improved; (3) used an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, to produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (4) produced training materials with learning objectives linked to these steps; (5) refined these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews in progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arose; (6) synthesised expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards; and (7) disseminated outputs to audiences in academia and policy.

Results:

An important element of this study was the establishment of an e-mail mailing list to bring together researches in the field (www.jiscmail.ac.uk/RAMESES). Our literature review identified 35 and nine realist and meta-narrative reviews respectively. Analysis and discussion within the project team produced a summary of the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 37 and 33 members (for realist and meta-narrative reviews respectively). Within three rounds this panel had reached a consensus on 19 (realist) and 20 (meta-narrative) key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90% and 91% respectively. The Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards for realist syntheses and meta-narrative reviews were published in open-access journals and quickly became highly accessed. The RAMESES quality standards and training materials drew together the following sources of data: (1) personal expertise as researchers and trainers; (2) data from the Delphi panels; (3) feedback from participants at training sessions we ran; and (4) comments made on RAMESES mailing list. The quality standards and training materials are freely available online (www.ramesesproject.org).

Discussion:

The production of these standards and guidance drew on multiple sources of knowledge and expertise, and a high degree of a consensus was achieved despite ongoing debate among researchers about the overall place of these methodologies in the secondary research toolkit. As with all secondary research methods, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency of studies. We anticipate that as more reviews are undertaken, further refinement will be needed to the publication and quality standards and training materials.

Limitations:

The project’s outputs are not definitive and in the future updating and further development is likely to be needed.

Conclusion:

An initial set of publication standards, quality standards and training materials have been produced for researchers, users and funders of realist or meta-narrative reviews. As realist and meta-narrative reviews are relatively new approaches to evidence synthesis, methodological development is needed for both review approaches.

Funding:

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 10/1008/07. The contractual start date was in April 2011. The final report began editorial review in July 2013 and was accepted for publication in January 2014. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

Declared competing interests of authors

none