Abstract
This guidance from Hoffmann and colleagues for reporting interventions in systematic reviews is widely applicable and likely to be useful to many readers.
Previously, we developed a tool that could be used in conjunction with this guidance.
The Oxford Implementation Index (OII) helps systematic reviewers address intervention (1) design, (2) delivery, (3) uptake, and (4) context.
Within trials, interventions may not be implemented exactly as intended. Thus, it is important to distinguish what was intended (i.e., in the trial protocol) from what actually happened (i.e., what providers and participants did in practice). Across trials, implementation may be a source of heterogeneity (e.g., for complex interventions), so reviewers should consider how differences in design, delivery, or uptake might affect the overall results. Finally, the context in which interventions are implemented might affect their comparative effectiveness or generalizability. Systematic reviewers should consider contextual similarities and differences across trials, and they should identify to whom and under what circumstances the results of systematic reviews might apply.
OII provides a framework that can be used in conjunction with the new guidance from Hoffmann and colleagues to help systematic reviewers address intervention implementation in their protocols, extract intervention details, incorporate intervention characteristics in analyses, and compare interventions across trials.
Evan Mayo-Wilson
Sean Grant
Paul Montgomery
Montgomery P, Underhill K, Operario D, Gardner F, Mayo-Wilson E (2013). The Oxford Implementation Index: A new tool for incorporating implementation data into systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 66(8): 874-882. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.006
Competing interests: No competing interests
Previously, we developed a tool that could be used in conjunction with this guidance.
The Oxford Implementation Index (OII) helps systematic reviewers address intervention (1) design, (2) delivery, (3) uptake, and (4) context.
Within trials, interventions may not be implemented exactly as intended. Thus, it is important to distinguish what was intended (i.e., in the trial protocol) from what actually happened (i.e., what providers and participants did in practice). Across trials, implementation may be a source of heterogeneity (e.g., for complex interventions), so reviewers should consider how differences in design, delivery, or uptake might affect the overall results. Finally, the context in which interventions are implemented might affect their comparative effectiveness or generalizability. Systematic reviewers should consider contextual similarities and differences across trials, and they should identify to whom and under what circumstances the results of systematic reviews might apply.
OII provides a framework that can be used in conjunction with the new guidance from Hoffmann and colleagues to help systematic reviewers address intervention implementation in their protocols, extract intervention details, incorporate intervention characteristics in analyses, and compare interventions across trials.
Evan Mayo-Wilson
Sean Grant
Paul Montgomery
Montgomery P, Underhill K, Operario D, Gardner F, Mayo-Wilson E (2013). The Oxford Implementation Index: A new tool for incorporating implementation data into systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 66(8): 874-882. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.006
Competing interests: No competing interests
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | j2998 |
| Journal | BMJ |
| Volume | 358 |
| Early online date | 20 Jul 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 9 Aug 2017 |