Hayley A Hutchings1, Kymberley Thorne2, Gabi S Jerzembek3, Wai-Yee Cheung2, David Cohen4, Dharmaraj Durai5, Frances L Rapport2, Anne C Seagrove2, John G Williams2, Ian T Russell2. 1. Patient and Population Health and Informatics Research (PPHI), Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Sciences 2, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK. Electronic address: h.a.hutchings@swansea.ac.uk. 2. Patient and Population Health and Informatics Research (PPHI), Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Sciences 2, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK. 3. Institute of Health Service Effectiveness (IHSE), Aston University Business School, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK. 4. Faculty of Health Sport and Science, University of South Wales, Treforest, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK. 5. Department of Medicine, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XW, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a tool for the accurate reporting and aggregation of findings from each of the multiple methods used in a complex evaluation in an unbiased way. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed a Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS) within a gastroenterology study [Evaluating New Innovations in (the delivery and organisation of) Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services by the NHS Modernisation Agency (ENIGMA)]. We subsequently tested it on a different gastroenterology trial [Multi-Institutional Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET)]. We created three layers to define the effects, methods, and findings from ENIGMA. We assigned numbers to each effect in layer 1 and letters to each method in layer 2. We used an alphanumeric code based on layers 1 and 2 to every finding in layer 3 to link the aims, methods, and findings. We illustrated analogous findings by assigning more than one alphanumeric code to a finding. We also showed that more than one effect or method could report the same finding. We presented contradictory findings by listing them in adjacent rows of the MATRICS. RESULTS: MATRICS was useful for the effective synthesis and presentation of findings of the multiple methods from ENIGMA. We subsequently successfully tested it by applying it to the MINuET trial. CONCLUSION: MATRICS is effective for synthesizing the findings of complex, multiple-method studies. Crown
OBJECTIVES: To develop a tool for the accurate reporting and aggregation of findings from each of the multiple methods used in a complex evaluation in an unbiased way. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed a Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS) within a gastroenterology study [Evaluating New Innovations in (the delivery and organisation of) Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services by the NHS Modernisation Agency (ENIGMA)]. We subsequently tested it on a different gastroenterology trial [Multi-Institutional Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET)]. We created three layers to define the effects, methods, and findings from ENIGMA. We assigned numbers to each effect in layer 1 and letters to each method in layer 2. We used an alphanumeric code based on layers 1 and 2 to every finding in layer 3 to link the aims, methods, and findings. We illustrated analogous findings by assigning more than one alphanumeric code to a finding. We also showed that more than one effect or method could report the same finding. We presented contradictory findings by listing them in adjacent rows of the MATRICS. RESULTS: MATRICS was useful for the effective synthesis and presentation of findings of the multiple methods from ENIGMA. We subsequently successfully tested it by applying it to the MINuET trial. CONCLUSION: MATRICS is effective for synthesizing the findings of complex, multiple-method studies. Crown
Authors: Clare I R Chandler; Deborah DiLiberto; Susan Nayiga; Lilian Taaka; Christine Nabirye; Miriam Kayendeke; Eleanor Hutchinson; James Kizito; Catherine Maiteki-Sebuguzi; Moses R Kamya; Sarah G Staedke Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: James Joseph Newham; Julia Forman; Michelle Heys; Simon Cousens; Claire Lemer; Mohamed Elsherbiny; Rose-Marie Satherley; Raghu Lingam; Ingrid Wolfe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.692