-
Editorial Comment
Meta-narrative and realist reviews: guidance, rules, publication standards and quality appraisal.
- David Gough.
- EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, 18 Woburn Square, London, WC1H 0NR, UK. d.gough@ioe.ac.uk
- Bmc Med. 2013 Jan 29; 11: 22.
AbstractRecently, there has been an expansion of different forms of systematic review of research and the development of guidance and standards about particular types of review. These reviews can be best understood within a broad framework of the dimensions on which reviews differ, and how the review methodology relates to the methodology of primary research. Similarly, publication standards can be understood in terms of their relation to other standards such as guidance and rules for undertaking reviews and systems for appraising the quality of reviews. This commentary is written with special reference to the publication standards for meta-narrative and realist reviews being published in BMC Medicine.See related research articles http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/20 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/21.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*,_underline_or**bold**. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>and subscript<sub>text</sub>. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3., hyphens-or asterisks*. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com) - Images can be included with:
 - For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote..