TY - JOUR
T1 - AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews—paper 3
T2 - adapting frameworks to develop protocols
AU - Butler, Mary
AU - Epstein, Richard A.
AU - Totten, Annette
AU - Whitlock, Evelyn P.
AU - Ansari, Mohammed T.
AU - Damschroder, Laura J.
AU - Balk, Ethan
AU - Bass, Eric B.
AU - Berkman, Nancy D.
AU - Hempel, Susanne
AU - Iyer, Suchitra
AU - Schoelles, Karen
AU - Guise, Jeanne Marie
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Authors
PY - 2017/10
Y1 - 2017/10
N2 - Background Once a proposed topic has been identified for a systematic review and has undergone a question formulation stage, a protocol must be developed that specifies the scope and research questions in detail and outlines the methodology for conducting the systematic review. Rationale Framework modifications are often needed to accommodate increased complexity. We describe and give examples of adaptations and alternatives to traditional analytic frameworks. Discussion This article identifies and describes elements of frameworks and how they can be adapted to inform the protocol and conduct of systematic reviews of complex interventions. Modifications may be needed to adapt the population, intervention, comparators, and outcomes normally used in protocol development to successfully describe complex interventions; in some instances, alternative frameworks may be better suited. Possible approaches to analytic frameworks for complex interventions that illustrate causal and associative linkages are outlined, including time elements, which systematic reviews of complex interventions may need to address. The need for and specifics of the accommodations vary with details of a specific systematic review. This in turn helps determine whether traditional frameworks are sufficient, can be refined, or if alternate frameworks must be adopted.
AB - Background Once a proposed topic has been identified for a systematic review and has undergone a question formulation stage, a protocol must be developed that specifies the scope and research questions in detail and outlines the methodology for conducting the systematic review. Rationale Framework modifications are often needed to accommodate increased complexity. We describe and give examples of adaptations and alternatives to traditional analytic frameworks. Discussion This article identifies and describes elements of frameworks and how they can be adapted to inform the protocol and conduct of systematic reviews of complex interventions. Modifications may be needed to adapt the population, intervention, comparators, and outcomes normally used in protocol development to successfully describe complex interventions; in some instances, alternative frameworks may be better suited. Possible approaches to analytic frameworks for complex interventions that illustrate causal and associative linkages are outlined, including time elements, which systematic reviews of complex interventions may need to address. The need for and specifics of the accommodations vary with details of a specific systematic review. This in turn helps determine whether traditional frameworks are sufficient, can be refined, or if alternate frameworks must be adopted.
KW - Analytic frameworks
KW - Complex interventions
KW - Evidence-based medicine
KW - Research design
KW - Review literature as topic
KW - Systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85025452268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85025452268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.013
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 28720510
AN - SCOPUS:85025452268
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 90
SP - 19
EP - 27
JO - American journal of syphilis, gonorrhea, and venereal diseases
JF - American journal of syphilis, gonorrhea, and venereal diseases
ER -