 |
 |
PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask] from the 'To:' section of your email.
Andrew and Simon
Thank you both for your responses – that’s really helpful advice and pointers.
Best Wishes
Becky
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Simon Carroll
Sent: 16 May 2021 17:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: My definition of a SR needs updating
PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove
[log in to unmask] from the 'To:' section of your email.
I like Andrew’s definition and point about bias, and this definition points to the type of expanded scope that people like Trisha and and Jennie Popay have influenced over the years. However, I think that
it is still useful to refer to ‘traditional SR’, that relies on a hierarchy of evidence (with RCTs at the top) and has an explicit aim of quantitative meta-analysis of outcomes data to asses effectiveness and safety of well-defined interventions. I say this
because it is still useful to make a contrast between different approaches to SR, and certainly to contrast approaches that exclude context and have a black box approach that takes into account only inputs (well-defined interventions) and outcomes, with approaches
that take context as a central object of analysis and synthesis, as realist reviews do.
Cheers, Simon
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2021, at 8:05 AM, Andrew Booth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
