Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

Translated by Li Geng ¹ , OUYANG Wenwei ¹ , ZHOU Li ¹ ,  GUO Xinfeng ¹ ,  WEN Zehuai ^1,2 , 译

1. The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine/Guangdong Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, P.R.China;
2. DME Center of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

GUO Xinfeng, Email: guoxinfeng@gzucm.edu.cn; WEN Zehuai, Email: wenzh@gzucm.edu.cn

Keywords：

系统评价; 数据合成; 报告指南

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202008114

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

在缺乏数据进行 Meta 分析的系统评价中，通常使用替代合成方法，但这些方法却很少被报道，而模糊的方法阐述可能会导致人们质疑系统评价结果的真实性。无 Meta 分析数据合成（SWiM）报告规范是用于指导采用了替代合成方法评估干预措施效应的系统评价进行清晰报告的规范。本文介绍了 SWiM 规范的研制过程及 9 个 SWiM 报告条目及其相应的解释与示例。

Citation： Translated by Li Geng, OUYANG Wenwei, ZHOU Li, GUO Xinfeng, WEN Zehuai. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020, 20(11): 1359-1364. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202008114 Copy

1.	Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature, 2018, 558(7710): 361-364.
2.	Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009, 339(1): b2700.
3.	Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 169(7): 467-473.
4.	Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ, 2016, 352: i157.
5.	Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med, 2015, 162(11): 777-784.
6.	Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med, 2016, 13(5): e1002028.
7.	Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Sowden A, et al. Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: a methodological assessment of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 105: 1-9.
8.	Campbell M, Katikireddi S, Sowden A, et al. Transparency in the reporting and conduct of narrative synthesis of quantitative data in systematic reviews (conference abstract). J Epidemiol Community Health, 2018, 72(Suppl 1): A23.
9.	Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product of the ESRC methods programme (version I). Lancashire: University of Lancaster, 2006.
10.	Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Sowden A, et al. Improving conduct and reporting of narrative synthesis of quantitative data (ICONS-Quant): protocol for a mixed methods study to develop a reporting guideline. BMJ Open, 2018, 8(2): e020064.
11.	McKenzie J, Brennan S. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 321-348.
12.	Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. J Adv Nurs, 2013, 69(5): 1005-1022.
13.	Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med, 2013, 11(1): 20.
14.	Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012, 12(1): 181.
15.	France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. Psychooncology, 2019, 28(3): 447-458.
16.	Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 2010, 7(2): e1000217.
17.	McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, et al. Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 33-66.
18.	Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods, 2011, 2(1): 33-42.
19.	Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 2015, 350(6): h1258.
20.	Thomas J, Kneale D, McKenzie JE, et al. Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 13-32.
21.	Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2000, 19(22): 3127-3131.
22.	Higgins J, Li T, Deeks J. Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 143-176.
23.	Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, et al. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 376-402.
24.	Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ, 2001, 322(7300): 1479-1480.
25.	Ogilvie D, Fayter D, Petticrew M, et al. The harvest plot: a method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2008, 8(1): 8.
26.	Thomson HJ, Thomas S. The effect direction plot: visual display of non-standardised effects across multiple outcome domains. Res Synth Methods, 2013, 4(1): 95-101.
27.	Harrison S, Jones HE, Martin RM, et al. The albatross plot: A novel graphical tool for presenting results of diversely reported studies in a systematic review. Res Synth Methods, 2017, 8(3): 281-289.
28.	Schriger DL, Sinha R, Schroter S, et al. From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal. Ann Emerg Med, 2006, 48(6): 750-756.
29.	McGill R, Tukey JW, Larsen WA. Variations of box plots. Am Stat, 1978, 32: 12-16.
30.	Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, et al. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Res Synth Methods, 2018, 9(1): 13-24.
31.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
32.	Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, et al. Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: study protocol, 2018. Available at: https://osf.io/2v7mk/.
33.	Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest, 2018, 48(6): e12931.
34.	Melendez-Torres GJ, Thomas J, Lorenc T, et al. Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 153.

1. Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature, 2018, 558(7710): 361-364.
2. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009, 339(1): b2700.
3. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 169(7): 467-473.
4. Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ, 2016, 352: i157.
5. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med, 2015, 162(11): 777-784.
6. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med, 2016, 13(5): e1002028.
7. Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Sowden A, et al. Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: a methodological assessment of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 105: 1-9.
8. Campbell M, Katikireddi S, Sowden A, et al. Transparency in the reporting and conduct of narrative synthesis of quantitative data in systematic reviews (conference abstract). J Epidemiol Community Health, 2018, 72(Suppl 1): A23.
9. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product of the ESRC methods programme (version I). Lancashire: University of Lancaster, 2006.
10. Campbell M, Katikireddi SV, Sowden A, et al. Improving conduct and reporting of narrative synthesis of quantitative data (ICONS-Quant): protocol for a mixed methods study to develop a reporting guideline. BMJ Open, 2018, 8(2): e020064.
11. McKenzie J, Brennan S. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 321-348.
12. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. J Adv Nurs, 2013, 69(5): 1005-1022.
13. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med, 2013, 11(1): 20.
14. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012, 12(1): 181.
15. France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. Psychooncology, 2019, 28(3): 447-458.
16. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 2010, 7(2): e1000217.
17. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, et al. Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 33-66.
18. Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods, 2011, 2(1): 33-42.
19. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 2015, 350(6): h1258.
20. Thomas J, Kneale D, McKenzie JE, et al. Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 13-32.
21. Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2000, 19(22): 3127-3131.
22. Higgins J, Li T, Deeks J. Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 143-176.
23. Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, et al. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 376-402.
24. Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ, 2001, 322(7300): 1479-1480.
25. Ogilvie D, Fayter D, Petticrew M, et al. The harvest plot: a method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2008, 8(1): 8.
26. Thomson HJ, Thomas S. The effect direction plot: visual display of non-standardised effects across multiple outcome domains. Res Synth Methods, 2013, 4(1): 95-101.
27. Harrison S, Jones HE, Martin RM, et al. The albatross plot: A novel graphical tool for presenting results of diversely reported studies in a systematic review. Res Synth Methods, 2017, 8(3): 281-289.
28. Schriger DL, Sinha R, Schroter S, et al. From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal. Ann Emerg Med, 2006, 48(6): 750-756.
29. McGill R, Tukey JW, Larsen WA. Variations of box plots. Am Stat, 1978, 32: 12-16.
30. Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, et al. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Res Synth Methods, 2018, 9(1): 13-24.
31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
32. Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, et al. Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: study protocol, 2018. Available at: https://osf.io/2v7mk/.
33. Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest, 2018, 48(6): e12931.
34. Melendez-Torres GJ, Thomas J, Lorenc T, et al. Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 153.

Previous Article
Introduction and interpretation of process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Format

Content