Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Methodologies to Optimise Patient Care and Enhance Policy Decisions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evidence Synthesis in Healthcare

Abstract

Evidence synthesis is a term applied to a group of assessment techniques that integrate the data from variable evidence sources. These techniques are used to provide best evidence in healthcare. Evidence synthesis has several advantages when compared to single studies and traditional data integration through meta-analysis. The complexities of combining heterogeneous data sources such as the amalgamation of both qualitative and quantitative data sources can be successfully overcome by applying these techniques. Evidence synthesis can summarise data by classifying each individual source according to its quality whilst it can also quantify the degree of uncertainty in synthesis results. In this chapter, we discuss current evidence synthesis methods and consider their application for medical practitioners, scientists and policymakers. We identify the future trends and increased importance of utilising evidence synthesis for evidence-based medicine. The versatility of evidence synthesis renders it a powerful tool in attaining the ultimate goal of improved health outcomes, innovation and enhanced quality of patient care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evidence?view=uk.

  2. Ashrafian H, Athanasiou T. Evidence-based surgery. In: Athanasiou T, Debas H, Darzi A, eds. Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rebitzer JB, Rege M, Shepard C. Influence, information overload, and information technology in health care. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2008;19:43-69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Revere D, Turner AM, Madhavan A, et al. Understanding the information needs of public health practitioners: a literature review to inform design of an interactive digital knowledge management system. J Biomed Inform. 2007;40:410-421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295-300.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Reekum R, Streiner DL, Conn DK. Applying Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation to neuropsychiatry: challenges and opportunities. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2001;13:318-325.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Levels of Evidence. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025.

  8. Rogers T. Amazing Applications of Probability and Statistics: Type I and Type II Errors - Making Mistakes in the Justice System; 1996. http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/T1T2Errors.html.

  9. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 “negative” trials. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:690-694.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Collins R, Keech A, Peto R, et al. Cholesterol and total mortality: need for larger trials. BMJ. 1992;304:1689.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mosteller F, Colditz GA. Understanding research synthesis (meta-analysis). Annu Rev Public Health. 1996;17:1-23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Slavin RE. Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:9-18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Letzel H. “Best-evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis”: discussion. A case of “either-or” or “as well”. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:19-21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mitton C, Patten S. Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9:146-152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hammersley M. What’s Wrong with Ethnography? London: Routledge; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):6-20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Noblit G, Hare R. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:45-53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Teagarden JR. Meta-analysis: whither narrative review? Pharmacotherapy. 1989;9:274-281. discussion 281–274.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ. 1997;315:1371-1374.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lucas PJ, Baird J, Arai L, Law C, Roberts HM. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997;315:1533-1537.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Gruyter; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. California: Thousand Oaks; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Morton RL, Tong A, Howard K, Snelling P, Webster AC. The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ. 2010;340:c112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Baxter S, Killoran A, Kelly MP, Goyder E. Synthesizing diverse evidence: the use of primary qualitative data analysis methods and logic models in public health reviews. Publ Health. 2010;124(2):99-106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21-34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pawson RD. Evidence Based Policy: II. The Promise of ‘Realist Synthesis’. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper 4; 2001. http://kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/45/91/wp4.pdf.

  32. Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Paterson BL, Thorne SE, Canam C, Jillings C. Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:417-430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11:72-84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320:114-116.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yin RK, Heald KA. Using the case survey method to analyse policy studies. Adm Sci Q. 1975;20:371-381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ragin CC. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, Stam W. Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health. 2008;11:956-964.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ojajarvi A, Partanen T, Ahlbom A, et al. Estimating the relative risk of pancreatic cancer associated with exposure agents in job title data in a hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2007;33:325-335.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Voils C, Hassselblad V, Crandell J, Chang Y, Lee E, Sandelowski M. A Bayesian method for the synthesis of evidence from qualitative and quantitative reports: the example of antiretroviral medication adherence. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14:226-233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Banning JH. Ecological triangulation: An approach for qualitative meta-synthesis Colorado: Colorado State University; (not_dated)Post2001. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Ecological%20Triangualtion.pdf.

  45. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Williams AL. Perspectives on spirituality at the end of life: a meta-summary. Palliat Support Care. 2006;4:407-417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1-19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Demiris N, Sharples LD. Bayesian evidence synthesis to extrapolate survival estimates in cost-effectiveness studies. Stat Med. 2006;25:1960-1975.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Weed M. ‘Meta-interpretation’: a method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2005;6:Art37.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gardner C. Meta-interpretation and hypertext fiction: a critical response. Comput Humanities. 2003;37:33-56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Harden A, Thomas J. Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:257-271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Jones DR. Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ades AE, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 2006;15:373-381.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Khan KS, Riet GT, Popay J, Nixon J, Kleijnen J. Study quality assessment - (Stage II, Conducting the Review, Phase 5). In: Centre_for_Reviews_and_Dissemination, ed. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009:1–20. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/CRD_Reports/crdreport4_ph5.pdf.

  55. Vandenbroucke JP. STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND, ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK... and CONSORT: for whom does the guideline toll? J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:594-596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. A drug-induced low. Nature. 2009;462:11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Nutt D. Government vs science over drug and alcohol policy. Lancet. 2009;374:1731-1733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Harvey S, Liddell A, McMahon L. Windmill 2009: NHS Response to the Financial Storm. London: King’s Fund; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Harvey S, McMahon L, Liddell A. Windmill 2007: The Future of Health Care Reforms in England. London: King’s Fund; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schrage M. Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Boston: Harvard Business Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  61. O’Rourke K. An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:579-582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Shampo MA, Kyle RA. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). JAMA. 1977;237:986.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Airy GB. On the Algebraical and Numerical Theory of Errors of Observations and the Combination of Observations. London: Macmillan & Company; 1861.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Pearson K. Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. BMJ. 1904;3:1243-1246.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Fisher RA. The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cochran WG, Diaconis P, Donner AP, et al. Experiments in surgical treatments of duodenal ulcer. In: Bunker JP, Barnes BA, Mosteller F, eds. Costs, Risks and Benefits of Surgery. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1977:176-197.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Neuhauser D. Ernest Amory Codman, M.D., and end results of medical care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6:307-325.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Pratt JG, Rhine JB, Smith BM, Stuart CE, Greenwood JA. Extra-Sensory Perception after Sixty Years: A Critical Appraisal of the Research in Extra-Sensory Perception. New York: Henry Holt; 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Glass GV. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976;10:3-8.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Elwood PC, Cochrane AL, Burr ML, et al. A randomized controlled trial of acetyl salicylic acid in the secondary prevention of mortality from myocardial infarction. BMJ. 1974;1:436-440.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Aspirin after myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1980;1:1172–1173.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Peto R. Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? Stat Med. 1987;6:233-244.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Last JM. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Lok C. Literature mining: speed reading. Nature. 2010;463:416-418.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17:279-301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Salanti G, Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JP. Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:544-553.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Fowler JH, Dawes CT, Christakis NA. Model of genetic variation in human social networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:1720-1724.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Saad A. The evidence-based paradox and the question of the tree of knowledge. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:650-652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Miles A, Loughlin M, Polychronis A. Evidence-based healthcare, clinical knowledge and the rise of personalised medicine. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:621-649.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Miles A, Loughlin M, Polychronis A. Medicine and evidence: knowledge and action in clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:481-503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Henry SG. Recognizing tacit knowledge in medical epistemology. Theor Med Bioeth. 2006;27:187-213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Loughlin M. Reason, reality and objectivity–shared dogmas and distortions in the way both ‘scientistic’ and ‘postmodern’ commentators frame the EBM debate. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:665-671.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Murray SJ, Holmes D, Perron A, Rail G. No exit? Intellectual integrity under the regime of ‘evidence’ and ‘best-practices’. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:512-516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Darzi A. High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report. London: Department of Health, United Kingdom; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Darzi A. Evidence-based medicine and the NHS: a commentary. J R Soc Med. 2008;101:342-344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Darzi A. A time for revolutions–the role of clinicians in health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:e8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Smith N, Mitton C, Peacock S. Qualitative methodologies in health-care priority setting research. Health Econ. 2009;18:1163-1175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Chong CA, Chen IJ, Naglie G, Krahn MD. How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences? J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:977-982.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Floresco SB, St Onge JR, Ghods-Sharifi S, Winstanley CA. Cortico-limbic-striatal circuits subserving different forms of cost-benefit decision making. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2008;8:375-389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Engelmann JB, Capra CM, Noussair C, Berns GS. Expert financial advice neurobiologically “Offloads” financial decision making under risk. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e4957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Livet P. Rational choice, neuroeconomy and mixed emotions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365:259-269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Hargreaves-Heap SP, Varoufakis Y. Game Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Peters H. Game Theory: A Multi-Leveled Approach. Heidelberg: Springer; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Tarrant C, Stokes T, Colman AM. Models of the medical consultation: opportunities and limitations of a game theory perspective. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:461-466.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Dowd SB. Applied game theory for the hospital manager. Three case studies. Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2004;23:156-161.

    Google Scholar 

  97. De Jaegher K, Jegers M. The physician-patient relationship as a game of strategic information transmission. Health Econ. 2001;10:651-668.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Aumann RJ, Maschler M. Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem for the Talmud. J Econ Theory. 1985;36:195-213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Skyrms B. The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Dyer JS. MAUT – multiattribute utility theory. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M, eds. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. New York: Springer; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Ioannidis JP. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:951-957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. van Valkengoed IG, Morre SA, van den Brule AJ, Meijer CJ, Bouter LM, Boeke AJ. Overestimation of complication rates in evaluations of Chlamydia trachomatis screening programmes–implications for cost-effectiveness analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:416-425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Ades AE. Commentary: evidence synthesis and evidence consistency. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:426-427.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Eddy DM. The confidence profile method: a Bayesian method for assessing health technologies. Oper Res. 1989;37:210-228.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Dakins ME, Toll JE, Small MJ, Brand KP. Risk-based environmental remediation: Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis and the expected value of sample information. Risk Anal. 1996;16:67-79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary’s Hospital Campus, London, UK

    Hutan Ashrafian

Authors
  1. Hutan Ashrafian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ara Darzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thanos Athanasiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hutan Ashrafian .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. St. Mary' Hospital London, Dept. Biosurgery & Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, London, W2 1NY, United Kingdom

    Ara Darzi

  2. St. Mary' Hospital London, Dept. Biosurgery & Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, London, W2 1NY, United Kingdom

    Thanos Athanasiou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ashrafian, H., Darzi, A., Athanasiou, T. (2011). Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Methodologies to Optimise Patient Care and Enhance Policy Decisions. In: Darzi, A., Athanasiou, T. (eds) Evidence Synthesis in Healthcare. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-206-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-206-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-175-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-206-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation