Intervention synthesis: A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s)
Paul P. Glasziou*, Iain Chalmers, Sally Green, Susan Michie
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare
Effective delivery of treatments requires clear procedural details of the essential elements of treatment. Hence, if a systematic review finds that a class of interventions is effective, then the users of the review will want to know: ''Which version of the intervention should I use?'' Current methods to guide selection or synthesis from the variations of a treatment used across trials in a systematic review are poorly developed, and absent from most instructions on systematic review methods. We identify three basic approaches: (i) single-trial-based choice, where criteria such as feasibility, cost, effectiveness, or familiarity guide which trial's treatment to adopt; (ii) common components hybrid, which extracts then combines—based on frequency and importance—components of several trials; and (iii) model-guided synthesis, where a model of the mechanisms of effect is used to code and assess the importance of components for the version(s) recommended. Whichever method is used, we suggest review authors provide an ''intervention options table'', which describes the pros and cons of some intervention alternatives used in an individual trial or set of trials. If clinicians and policymakers are to be expected to base their practices on the results of systematic reviews in practice, these three approaches will need to be more widely adopted.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690
10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690Licence: CC BY
Intervention synthesis: A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s)Final published version, 678 KBLicence: CC BY
Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Intervention synthesis: A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Recognition (Psychology) Medicine & Life Sciences
Cost-Benefit Analysis Medicine & Life Sciences
Cost effectiveness Chemical Compounds
Glasziou, P. P., Chalmers, I., Green, S., & Michie, S. (2014). Intervention synthesis: A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s). PLoS Medicine, 11(8), [e1001690]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690
Glasziou, Paul P. ; Chalmers, Iain ; Green, Sally ; Michie, Susan. / Intervention synthesis : A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s). In: PLoS Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 11, No. 8.
@article{5fb564a549ee4300b0cce176c6332ba3,
title = "Intervention synthesis: A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s)",
abstract = "Effective delivery of treatments requires clear procedural details of the essential elements of treatment. Hence, if a systematic review finds that a class of interventions is effective, then the users of the review will want to know: {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}Which version of the intervention should I use?{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} Current methods to guide selection or synthesis from the variations of a treatment used across trials in a systematic review are poorly developed, and absent from most instructions on systematic review methods. We identify three basic approaches: (i) single-trial-based choice, where criteria such as feasibility, cost, effectiveness, or familiarity guide which trial{\textquoteright}s treatment to adopt; (ii) common components hybrid, which extracts then combines—based on frequency and importance—components of several trials; and (iii) model-guided synthesis, where a model of the mechanisms of effect is used to code and assess the importance of components for the version(s) recommended. Whichever method is used, we suggest review authors provide an {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}intervention options table{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright}, which describes the pros and cons of some intervention alternatives used in an individual trial or set of trials. If clinicians and policymakers are to be expected to base their practices on the results of systematic reviews in practice, these three approaches will need to be more widely adopted.",
author = "Glasziou, {Paul P.} and Iain Chalmers and Sally Green and Susan Michie",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690",
journal = "PLoS Medicine",
Glasziou, PP, Chalmers, I, Green, S & Michie, S 2014, 'Intervention synthesis: A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s)', PLoS Medicine, vol. 11, no. 8, e1001690. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690
Intervention synthesis : A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s). / Glasziou, Paul P.; Chalmers, Iain; Green, Sally; Michie, Susan.
In: PLoS Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 8, e1001690, 12.08.2014.
T1 - Intervention synthesis
T2 - A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s)
AU - Glasziou, Paul P.
AU - Chalmers, Iain
AU - Green, Sally
AU - Michie, Susan
N2 - Effective delivery of treatments requires clear procedural details of the essential elements of treatment. Hence, if a systematic review finds that a class of interventions is effective, then the users of the review will want to know: ''Which version of the intervention should I use?'' Current methods to guide selection or synthesis from the variations of a treatment used across trials in a systematic review are poorly developed, and absent from most instructions on systematic review methods. We identify three basic approaches: (i) single-trial-based choice, where criteria such as feasibility, cost, effectiveness, or familiarity guide which trial's treatment to adopt; (ii) common components hybrid, which extracts then combines—based on frequency and importance—components of several trials; and (iii) model-guided synthesis, where a model of the mechanisms of effect is used to code and assess the importance of components for the version(s) recommended. Whichever method is used, we suggest review authors provide an ''intervention options table'', which describes the pros and cons of some intervention alternatives used in an individual trial or set of trials. If clinicians and policymakers are to be expected to base their practices on the results of systematic reviews in practice, these three approaches will need to be more widely adopted.
AB - Effective delivery of treatments requires clear procedural details of the essential elements of treatment. Hence, if a systematic review finds that a class of interventions is effective, then the users of the review will want to know: ''Which version of the intervention should I use?'' Current methods to guide selection or synthesis from the variations of a treatment used across trials in a systematic review are poorly developed, and absent from most instructions on systematic review methods. We identify three basic approaches: (i) single-trial-based choice, where criteria such as feasibility, cost, effectiveness, or familiarity guide which trial's treatment to adopt; (ii) common components hybrid, which extracts then combines—based on frequency and importance—components of several trials; and (iii) model-guided synthesis, where a model of the mechanisms of effect is used to code and assess the importance of components for the version(s) recommended. Whichever method is used, we suggest review authors provide an ''intervention options table'', which describes the pros and cons of some intervention alternatives used in an individual trial or set of trials. If clinicians and policymakers are to be expected to base their practices on the results of systematic reviews in practice, these three approaches will need to be more widely adopted.
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690
DO - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690
JO - PLoS Medicine
JF - PLoS Medicine
Glasziou PP, Chalmers I, Green S, Michie S. Intervention synthesis: A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s). PLoS Medicine. 2014 Aug 12;11(8). e1001690. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690