Cited by 92Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementation

The Oxford Implementation Index: a new tool for incorporating implementation data into systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Open access
Montgomery, Paul, Underhill, Kristen, Gardner, Frances, Operario, Don, Mayo-Wilson, Evan·2013·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective This article presents a new tool that helps systematic reviewers extract and compare implementation data across primary trials. Currently, systematic review guidance does not provide guidelines for the identification and extraction of data related to the implementation of underlying interventions. Study Design and Setting A team of systematic reviewers used a multi-staged consensus development approach to develop this tool. First, a systematic literature search on the implementation and synthesis of clinical trial evidence was performed. The team then met in a series of subcommittees to develop an initial draft index. Drafts were presented at several research conferences and circulated to methodological experts in various health-related disciplines for feedback. The team systematically recorded, discussed, and incorporated all feedback into further revisions. A penultimate draft was discussed at the 2010 Cochrane-Campbell Collaboration Colloquium to finalise its content. Results The Oxford Implementation Index provides a checklist of implementation data to extract from primary trials. Checklist items are organised into four domains: intervention design, actual delivery by trial practitioners, uptake of the intervention by participants, and contextual factors. Systematic reviewers piloting the index at the Cochrane-Campbell Colloquium reported that the index was helpful for the identification of implementation data. Conclusion The Oxford Implementation Index provides a framework to help reviewers assess implementation data across trials. Reviewers can use this tool to identify implementation data, extract relevant information, and compare features of implementation across primary trials in a systematic review. The index is a work in progress, and future efforts will focus on refining the index, improving usability, and integrating the index with other guidance on systematic reviewing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.006

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An intervention summary table shows which studies did not specify certain characteristics as part of the intervention.

    “shows which studies did not specify certain characteristics as part of the intervention;”

    From PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [75]

    The Results section (“Domains of the Oxford Implementation Index,” page not available) says reviewers should check whether intervention components are clearly specified in trial reports. The Discussion adds that the Index can identify missing implementation data. Neither passage says that an intervention summary table shows which studies omitted particular characteristics. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An intervention summary table highlights missing or unavailable details.

    “highlights missing or unavailable details;”

    From PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [75]

    The Discussion says the Oxford Implementation Index helps identify absent implementation data, and Results (‘Using the Oxford Implementation Index’) describes a data-extraction format shown in Table 1. The paper supports highlighting missing intervention details, but does not specifically establish that an intervention summary table does so. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An intervention summary table helps readers compare the characteristics of the interventions and consider those that may be feasible for implementation in their setting.

    “An intervention summary table helps readers compare the characteristics of the interventions and consider those that may be feasible for implementation in their setting;”
  • An intervention summary table highlights characteristics that have not been investigated in existing studies.

    “and highlights characteristics that have not been investigated in existing studies.73 75”

    From PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [75]

    The Results section describes using the Oxford Implementation Index to record intervention characteristics and differences across trials, but does not say that an intervention summary table highlights characteristics not investigated in existing studies. Searches for “summary table” and research gaps found no passage making that point; the copy’s discussion of underreporting is not the same as a characteristic being uninvestigated. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [27]Tamayo S Orange data: Implications of treatment fidelity for systematic reviewing [M.Sc. Thesis in Evidence-Based Social Work] 2004 University of Oxford
  2. [50]Higgins J Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 2011 Chichester, UK Wiley-Blackwell [updated March 2011]
  3. [52]Campbell Collaboration Guidelines for the preparation of review protocols 2001 cited 2006 7 February (Version 1.0). [updated 2001;]; Available from: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/Fraguidelines.html

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Montgomery, P., Underhill, K., Gardner, F., Operario, D., & Mayo-Wilson, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Montgomery, Paul
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
66
Issue
8
Pages
874-882
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125696596
Cited by
92
References
94
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH093232)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (P30AI042853)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
implementation research, systematic review methodology, intervention delivery, intervention uptake, contextual factors, consensus development
MeSH terms
Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Consensus, Evidence-Based Practice, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review