Cited by 385Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance Assessment

RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses

Wong, Geoff, Greenhalgh, Trish, Westhorp, Gill, Buckingham, Jeanette, Pawson, Ray·2013·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Background: There is growing interest in realist synthesis as an alternative systematic review method. This approach offers the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy‐relevant areas – for example, by explaining the success, failure or mixed fortunes of complex interventions. No previous publication standards exist for reporting realist syntheses. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And ME ta‐narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for realist systematic reviews. Design: A mixed method study synthesising data between 2011–2012 from a literature review, online Delphi panel and feedback from training, workshops and email list. Methods: We: (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist syntheses; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published syntheses, thereby identifying how rigour may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three‐round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, realist research, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real‐time support to ongoing realist syntheses and the open‐access RAMESES online discussion list to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence syntheses and real‐time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards. Results: We identified 35 published realist syntheses, provided real‐time support to 9 ongoing syntheses and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 37 members. Within 3 rounds this panel had reached consensus on 19 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 91%. Conclusions: This project used multiple sources to develop and draw together evidence and expertise in realist synthesis. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Realist synthesis is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of realist syntheses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jan.12095

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Wong et al. state that realist reviews reveal what policy makers or practitioners might put in place to change the context or provide resources in such a way as to most likely trigger the right mechanism(s) to produce the desired outcome.

    “Wong et al33 states that realist reviews reveal ‘what policy makers or practitioners might put in place to change the context or provide resources in such a way as to most likely trigger the right mechanism(s) to produce the desired outcome’.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Centre for Primary Care and Public Health Queen Mary University of London UK
  • Community Matters Mount Torrens South Australia Australia
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01-29
Volume
69
Issue
5
Pages
1005-1022
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2005235635
Cited by
385
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11
FWCI
33.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0512-10031, 10/1008/07)
  • Health Services Research Programme
  • Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
realist synthesis, publication standards, reporting guidelines, realist research, complex interventions, evidence synthesis, methodological quality, expert consensus, Delphi panel, metanarrative
MeSH terms
Delphi Technique, Publishing

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