Author Correction: Using rigorous methods to advance behaviour change science

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses

RATIONALE

The journal Social Science & Medicine recently adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009) as guidelines for authors to use when disseminating their systematic reviews (SRs).

APPROACH

After providing a brief history of evidence synthesis, this article describes why reporting standards are important, summarizes the sequential steps involved in conducting SRs and meta-analyses, and outlines additional methodological issues that researchers should address when conducting and reporting results from their SRs.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Successful SRs result when teams of reviewers with appropriate expertise use the highest scientific rigor in all steps of the SR process. Thus, SRs that lack foresight are unlikely to prove successful. We advocate that SR teams consider potential moderators (M) when defining their research problem, along with Time, Outcomes, Population, Intervention, Context, and Study design (i.e., TOPICS + M). We also show that, because the PRISMA reporting standards only partially overlap dimensions of methodological quality, it is possible for SRs to satisfy PRISMA standards yet still have poor methodological quality. As well, we discuss limitations of such standards and instruments in the face of the assumptions of the SR process, including meta-analysis spanning the other SR steps, which are highly synergistic: Study search and selection, coding of study characteristics and effects, analysis, interpretation, reporting, and finally, re-analysis and criticism. When a SR targets an important question with the best possible SR methods, its results can become a definitive statement that guides future research and policy decisions for years to come.