Cited by 177Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Testing methodological developments in the conduct of narrative synthesis: a demonstration review of research on the implementation of smoke alarm interventions

Arai, Lisa, Britten, Nicky, Popay, Jennie, Roberts, Helen, Petticrew, Mark, Rodgers, Mark, Sowden, Amanda·2007·Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice

Abstract

In the context of systematic reviews, statistical meta-analysis of findings is not always possible. Where this is the case, or where a review of implementation evidence is required, narrative synthesis of data is typically undertaken. Drawing on recently developed guidance aimed at those undertaking data synthesis - and information on the implementation of domestic smoke detectors - we present findings from a demonstration of the tools and techniques that can be used in a narrative synthesis. The work demonstrates how this process can be made more transparent and suggests that using the tools and techniques can improve the quality of narrative synthesis. © The Policy Press.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1332/174426407781738029

Cites

14 of 14 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arai, L., Britten, N., Popay, J., Roberts, H., Petticrew, M., Rodgers, M., & Sowden, A.
Venue
Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice
Published
2007-08-01
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
361-383
ISSN
  • 1744-2648 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-2656
OpenAlex
W2108500395
Cited by
177
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evidence & Policy (publishedVersion)
  • Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (submittedVersion)
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
narrative synthesis, implementation research, methodological recommendations

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