Cited by 408Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementation

Can We Systematically Review Studies That Evaluate Complex Interventions?

Open access
Shepperd, Sasha, Lewin, Simon, Straus, Sharon, Clarke, Mike, Eccles, Martin P., Fitzpatrick, Ray, Wong, Geoff, Sheikh, Aziz·2009·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: The UK Medical Research Council defines complex interventions as those comprising "a number of separate elements which seem essential to the proper functioning of the interventions although the 'active ingredient' of the intervention that is effective is difficult to specify." A typical example is specialist care on a stroke unit, which involves a wide range of health professionals delivering a variety of treatments. Michelle Campbell and colleagues have argued that there are "specific difficulties in defining, developing, documenting, and reproducing complex interventions that are subject to more variation than a drug". These difficulties are one of the reasons why it is challenging for researchers to systematically review complex interventions and synthesize data from separate studies. This PLoS Medicine Debate considers the challenges facing systematic reviewers and suggests several ways of addressing them.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000086

Cites

61 of 61 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?

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: 1

  1. [49]Pawson R 2002 Does Megan's Law work? A theory driven systematic review. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice University of London

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shepperd, S., Lewin, S., Straus, S., Clarke, M., Eccles, M. P., Fitzpatrick, R., Wong, G., & Sheikh, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Shepperd, Sasha
  • Wong, Geoff
  • Sheikh, Aziz
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2009-08-11
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
e1000086
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2145257154
Cited by
408
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 115 · 2012: 33
FWCI
32.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Cancer Research Institute
  • National Cancer Research Institute
  • Scottish Government
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RSES/PDA/C2/017)
  • Asthma and Lung UK
  • University College London
  • Medical Research Council
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
complex interventions, systematic review methodology, intervention definition, intervention documentation, data synthesis, stroke unit care
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Biomedical Research

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