Advertisement

Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Methodologies to Optimise Patient Care and Enhance Policy Decisions

  • Hutan Ashrafian
  • Ara Darzi
  • Thanos Athanasiou
Chapter

Abstract

Evidence synthesis is a term applied to a group of assessment techniques that integrate the data from variable evidence sources. These techniques are used to provide best evidence in healthcare. Evidence synthesis has several advantages when compared to single studies and traditional data integration through meta-analysis. The complexities of combining heterogeneous data sources such as the amalgamation of both qualitative and quantitative data sources can be successfully overcome by applying these techniques. Evidence synthesis can summarise data by classifying each individual source according to its quality whilst it can also quantify the degree of uncertainty in synthesis results. In this chapter, we discuss current evidence synthesis methods and consider their application for medical practitioners, scientists and policymakers. We identify the future trends and increased importance of utilising evidence synthesis for evidence-based medicine. The versatility of evidence synthesis renders it a powerful tool in attaining the ultimate goal of improved health outcomes, innovation and enhanced quality of patient care.

Keywords

Narrative Review Evidence Synthesis Qualitative Comparative Analysis Narrative Synthesis Knowledge Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evidence?view=uk.
  2. 2.
    Ashrafian H, Athanasiou T. Evidence-based surgery. In: Athanasiou T, Debas H, Darzi A, eds. Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rebitzer JB, Rege M, Shepard C. Influence, information overload, and information technology in health care. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2008;19:43-69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Revere D, Turner AM, Madhavan A, et al. Understanding the information needs of public health practitioners: a literature review to inform design of an interactive digital knowledge management system. J Biomed Inform. 2007;40:410-421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295-300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Reekum R, Streiner DL, Conn DK. Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation to neuropsychiatry: challenges and opportunities. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2001;13:318-325.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levels of Evidence. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025.
  8. 8.
    Rogers T. Amazing Applications of Probability and Statistics: Type I and Type II Errors - Making Mistakes in the Justice System; 1996. http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/T1T2Errors.html.
  9. 9.
    Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 “negative” trials. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:690-694.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collins R, Keech A, Peto R, et al. Cholesterol and total mortality: need for larger trials. BMJ. 1992;304:1689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mosteller F, Colditz GA. Understanding research synthesis (meta-analysis). Annu Rev Public Health. 1996;17:1-23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Slavin RE. Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:9-18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Letzel H. “Best-evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis”: discussion. A case of “either-or” or “as well”. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:19-21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitton C, Patten S. Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9:146-152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hammersley M. What’s Wrong with Ethnography? London: Routledge; 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):6-20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noblit G, Hare R. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:45-53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Teagarden JR. Meta-analysis: whither narrative review? Pharmacotherapy. 1989;9:274-281. discussion 281–274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ. 1997;315:1371-1374.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lucas PJ, Baird J, Arai L, Law C, Roberts HM. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997;315:1533-1537.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Gruyter; 1967.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. California: Thousand Oaks; 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morton RL, Tong A, Howard K, Snelling P, Webster AC. The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ. 2010;340:c112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baxter S, Killoran A, Kelly MP, Goyder E. Synthesizing diverse evidence: the use of primary qualitative data analysis methods and logic models in public health reviews. Publ Health. 2010;124(2):99-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21-34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pawson RD. Evidence Based Policy: II. The Promise of ‘Realist Synthesis’. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper 4; 2001. http://kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/45/91/wp4.pdf.
  32. 32.
    Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Paterson BL, Thorne SE, Canam C, Jillings C. Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:417-430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11:72-84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320:114-116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yin RK, Heald KA. Using the case survey method to analyse policy studies. Adm Sci Q. 1975;20:371-381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ragin CC. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, Stam W. Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health. 2008;11:956-964.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ojajarvi A, Partanen T, Ahlbom A, et al. Estimating the relative risk of pancreatic cancer associated with exposure agents in job title data in a hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2007;33:325-335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Voils C, Hassselblad V, Crandell J, Chang Y, Lee E, Sandelowski M. A Bayesian method for the synthesis of evidence from qualitative and quantitative reports: the example of antiretroviral medication adherence. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14:226-233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Banning JH. Ecological triangulation: An approach for qualitative meta-synthesis Colorado: Colorado State University; (not_dated)Post2001. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Ecological%20Triangualtion.pdf.
  45. 45.
    Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Williams AL. Perspectives on spirituality at the end of life: a meta-summary. Palliat Support Care. 2006;4:407-417.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1-19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Demiris N, Sharples LD. Bayesian evidence synthesis to extrapolate survival estimates in cost-effectiveness studies. Stat Med. 2006;25:1960-1975.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weed M. ‘Meta-interpretation’: a method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2005;6:Art37.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gardner C. Meta-interpretation and hypertext fiction: a critical response. Comput Humanities. 2003;37:33-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Harden A, Thomas J. Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:257-271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Jones DR. Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ades AE, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 2006;15:373-381.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Khan KS, Riet GT, Popay J, Nixon J, Kleijnen J. Study quality assessment - (Stage II, Conducting the Review, Phase 5). In: Centre_for_Reviews_and_Dissemination, ed. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009:1–20. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/CRD_Reports/crdreport4_ph5.pdf.
  55. 55.
    Vandenbroucke JP. STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND, ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK... and CONSORT: for whom does the guideline toll? J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:594-596.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    A drug-induced low. Nature. 2009;462:11–12.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nutt D. Government vs science over drug and alcohol policy. Lancet. 2009;374:1731-1733.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Harvey S, Liddell A, McMahon L. Windmill 2009: NHS Response to the Financial Storm. London: King’s Fund; 2009.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Harvey S, McMahon L, Liddell A. Windmill 2007: The Future of Health Care Reforms in England. London: King’s Fund; 2007.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schrage M. Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Boston: Harvard Business Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    O’Rourke K. An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:579-582.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shampo MA, Kyle RA. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). JAMA. 1977;237:986.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Airy GB. On the Algebraical and Numerical Theory of Errors of Observations and the Combination of Observations. London: Macmillan & Company; 1861.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pearson K. Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. BMJ. 1904;3:1243-1246.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fisher RA. The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1935.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cochran WG, Diaconis P, Donner AP, et al. Experiments in surgical treatments of duodenal ulcer. In: Bunker JP, Barnes BA, Mosteller F, eds. Costs, Risks and Benefits of Surgery. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1977:176-197.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Neuhauser D. Ernest Amory Codman, M.D., and end results of medical care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6:307-325.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pratt JG, Rhine JB, Smith BM, Stuart CE, Greenwood JA. Extra-Sensory Perception after Sixty Years: A Critical Appraisal of the Research in Extra-Sensory Perception. New York: Henry Holt; 1940.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Glass GV. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976;10:3-8.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Elwood PC, Cochrane AL, Burr ML, et al. A randomized controlled trial of acetyl salicylic acid in the secondary prevention of mortality from myocardial infarction. BMJ. 1974;1:436-440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Aspirin after myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1980;1:1172–1173.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Peto R. Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? Stat Med. 1987;6:233-244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Last JM. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lok C. Literature mining: speed reading. Nature. 2010;463:416-418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17:279-301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Salanti G, Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JP. Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:544-553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fowler JH, Dawes CT, Christakis NA. Model of genetic variation in human social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:1720-1724.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Saad A. The evidence-based paradox and the question of the tree of knowledge. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:650-652.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Miles A, Loughlin M, Polychronis A. Evidence-based healthcare, clinical knowledge and the rise of personalised medicine. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:621-649.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Miles A, Loughlin M, Polychronis A. Medicine and evidence: knowledge and action in clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:481-503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Henry SG. Recognizing tacit knowledge in medical epistemology. Theor Med Bioeth. 2006;27:187-213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Loughlin M. Reason, reality and objectivity–shared dogmas and distortions in the way both ‘scientistic’ and ‘postmodern’ commentators frame the EBM debate. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:665-671.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Murray SJ, Holmes D, Perron A, Rail G. No exit? Intellectual integrity under the regime of ‘evidence’ and ‘best-practices’. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:512-516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Darzi A. High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report. London: Department of Health, United Kingdom; 2008.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Darzi A. Evidence-based medicine and the NHS: a commentary. J R Soc Med. 2008;101:342-344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Darzi A. A time for revolutions–the role of clinicians in health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:e8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Smith N, Mitton C, Peacock S. Qualitative methodologies in health-care priority setting research. Health Econ. 2009;18:1163-1175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Chong CA, Chen IJ, Naglie G, Krahn MD. How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences? J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:977-982.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Floresco SB, St Onge JR, Ghods-Sharifi S, Winstanley CA. Cortico-limbic-striatal circuits subserving different forms of cost-benefit decision making. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2008;8:375-389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Engelmann JB, Capra CM, Noussair C, Berns GS. Expert financial advice neurobiologically “Offloads” financial decision making under risk. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e4957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Livet P. Rational choice, neuroeconomy and mixed emotions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365:259-269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Hargreaves-Heap SP, Varoufakis Y. Game Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge; 2004.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Peters H. Game Theory: A Multi-Leveled Approach. Heidelberg: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Tarrant C, Stokes T, Colman AM. Models of the medical consultation: opportunities and limitations of a game theory perspective. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:461-466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Dowd SB. Applied game theory for the hospital manager. Three case studies. Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2004;23:156-161.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    De Jaegher K, Jegers M. The physician-patient relationship as a game of strategic information transmission. Health Econ. 2001;10:651-668.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Aumann RJ, Maschler M. Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem for the Talmud. J Econ Theory. 1985;36:195-213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Skyrms B. The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Dyer JS. MAUT – multiattribute utility theory. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M, eds. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. New York: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Ioannidis JP. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:951-957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    van Valkengoed IG, Morre SA, van den Brule AJ, Meijer CJ, Bouter LM, Boeke AJ. Overestimation of complication rates in evaluations of Chlamydia trachomatis screening programmes–implications for cost-effectiveness analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:416-425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ades AE. Commentary: evidence synthesis and evidence consistency. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:426-427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Eddy DM. The confidence profile method: a Bayesian method for assessing health technologies. Oper Res. 1989;37:210-228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Dakins ME, Toll JE, Small MJ, Brand KP. Risk-based environmental remediation: Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis and the expected value of sample information. Risk Anal. 1996;16:67-79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery and CancerImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations