4.6 Review

A review of methods for addressing components of interventions in meta-analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246631

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Union [634238]
  2. Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) [15.0137, 180083]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [RU1747/1-2]
  4. Swiss government
  5. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [634238] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The article provides an overview of methods for evaluating the effects of complex interventions with meta-analytical models, highlighting methodology, new developments, benefits, drawbacks, and potential challenges of each method. With the development of easy-to-use software tools, meta-analytical methods focusing on components of multicomponent interventions are expected to become more popular. Different meta-analytical methods are illustrated through examples comparing psychotherapies for panic disorder.
Many healthcare interventions are complex, consisting of multiple, possibly interacting, components. Several methodological articles addressing complex interventions in the meta-analytical context have been published. We hereby provide an overview of methods used to evaluate the effects of complex interventions with meta-analytical models. We summarized the methodology, highlighted new developments, and described the benefits, drawbacks, and potential challenges of each identified method. We expect meta-analytical methods focusing on components of several multicomponent interventions to become increasingly popular due to recently developed, easy-to-use, software tools that can be used to conduct the relevant analyses. The different meta-analytical methods are illustrated through two examples comparing psychotherapies for panic disorder.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available