Intervention synthesis: A missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s)

Paul P. Glasziou, Iain Chalmers, Sally Green, Susan Michie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

26 Citations (Scopus)

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: ‘‘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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere1001690
Number of pages7
JournalPLoS Medicine
Volume11
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Aug 2014

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost effectiveness
Recognition (Psychology)

Cite this

@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: ‘‘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.",
author = "Glasziou, {Paul P.} and Iain Chalmers and Sally Green and Susan Michie",
year = "2014",
month = "8",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
journal = "PLoS Medicine",
issn = "1549-1277",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "8",

}

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.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

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

PY - 2014/8/12

Y1 - 2014/8/12

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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84936104374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690

DO - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001690

M3 - Article

VL - 11

JO - PLoS Medicine

JF - PLoS Medicine

SN - 1549-1277

IS - 8

M1 - e1001690

ER -