Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews – Research Journal Club – Nursing Education Network

This research journal club article features . This is a nine-item reporting checklist developed to extend the transparency of systematic reviews.

: Campbell, M., Mension, J.E., Sweden, A., Cathicians, S.V., Brennan, S.E., Ellis, … and Thomson, H. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guidelines. BMJ, 368.

For many years, medical and public health policymakers have relied on the “systematic review” because the gold standard of evidence. These comprehensive reports bring together all available research on a subject to offer a transparent, reliable answer. But a surprising problem lurks beneath the surface. When the gold standard statistical method, meta-analysis, shouldn’t be possible, reporting on alternative methods is usually not transparent, which can forged doubt on the findings.

And it goals to reply the query: “”

An estimated 32% of all health systematic reviews fall into this category for which a meta-analysis of the consequences of the intervention can’t be performed. This signifies that much of our medical evidence base is marred by unclear reporting. To address this issue, a dedicated group of researchers have developed recent guidelines that provide much-needed clarity and restore confidence in these essential reviews.

In situations where studies are too diverse to be statistically combined in a meta-analysis, researchers turn to alternative methods. These are sometimes grouped together under the overall term “narrative synthesis”, which will likely be based on a textual description of the consequences. The problem is that and not using a formal, described structure, this “narrative” can grow to be a subjective summary slightly than a repeatable scientific synthesis, which prevents others from critically assessing how the conclusions are reached. The fundamental problem, then, is that reporting on these methods is usually poor, making it difficult for other scientists, doctors and policymakers to confirm the outcomes.

Serious shortcomings were present in reviews using ‘narrative synthesis’, including an absence of description of the methods used; unclear connections between the included data, synthesis and conclusions; and inadequate reporting of synthesis limitations. This means that just about a 3rd of systematic reviews may draw conclusions which might be difficult to confirm based on the first evidence that doctors use to pick treatments. The evidence utilized by policymakers to put in writing public health guidelines could also be based on methods that will not be transparently reported.

SWiM (Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis) signals a fundamental shift towards more precise, rigorous and transparent language in scientific reports over the course of . SWiM’s avoidance of the term “narrative synthesis” is a deliberate effort to make sure transparency of the methods utilized in reviews where synthesis shouldn’t be based on meta-analysis.

The solution proposed by the researchers is the “Synthesis without meta-analysis” (SWiM) guideline. This is a nine-item checklist intended to advertise transparent reporting for reviews that can’t use meta-analysis. It was designed not as a substitute, but as enlargement according to the well-known PRISMA statement that governs the reporting of all systematic reviews.

The key point is that SWiM is a tenet for reporting what was done, not an instruction learn how to proceed synthesis. This is a vital distinction: SWiM doesn’t tell researchers about it How to perform the evaluation, but requires an in depth description of what they did, which can provide control and validation of their work.

The checklist encourages researchers to stick to key transparency standards, for instance:

• Requires a transparent description of how studies shall be grouped for evaluation.

• Requires a transparent justification of the synthesis method used.

• Provides data presentation in standard tables and charts for comparison.

• Forces a reliable assessment of the restrictions of the synthesis and their impact on the conclusions.

The guidelines aim to make sure transparency. It goals to construct confidence in reviews that synthesize quantitative data. This is refrained from counting on traditional meta-analysis.