Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov 16;5(1):192.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0366-6.

Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers' methodological values and practices

Theo Lorenc  1 , Lambert Felix  2 , Mark Petticrew  2 , G J Melendez-Torres  3 , James Thomas  4 , Sian Thomas  2 , Alison O'Mara-Eves  4 , Michelle Richardson  4
Affiliations

Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers' methodological values and practices

Theo Lorenc et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Complex or heterogeneous data pose challenges for systematic review and meta-analysis. In recent years, a number of new methods have been developed to meet these challenges. This qualitative interview study aimed to understand researchers' understanding of complexity and heterogeneity and the factors which may influence the choices researchers make in synthesising complex data.

Methods: We conducted interviews with a purposive sample of researchers (N = 19) working in systematic review or meta-analysis across a range of disciplines. We analysed data thematically using a framework approach.

Results: Participants reported using a broader range of methods and data types in complex reviews than in traditional reviews. A range of techniques are used to explore heterogeneity, but there is some debate about their validity, particularly when applied post hoc.

Conclusions: Technical considerations of how to synthesise complex evidence cannot be isolated from questions of the goals and contexts of research. However, decisions about how to analyse data appear to be made in a largely informal way, drawing on tacit expertise, and their relation to these broader questions remains unclear.

Keywords: Complexity; Heterogeneity; Meta-analysis; Qualitative research; Systematic review methodology.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Petticrew M. When are complex interventions ‘complex’? When are simple interventions ‘simple’? Eur J Public Health. 2011;21:397–8. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr084. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shiell A, Hawe P, Gold L. Complex interventions or complex systems? Implications for health economic evaluation. BMJ. 2008;336:1281–3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39569.510521.AD. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shepperd S, Lewin S, Straus S, Clarke M, Eccles MP, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000086. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000086. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pigott T, Shepperd S. Identifying, documenting, and examining heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1244–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.013. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types