Cover: AHRQ Series on Complex Intervention Systematic Reviews

AHRQ Series on Complex Intervention Systematic Reviews

Selecting Analytic Approaches

Published in: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology [Epub July 2017]. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.014

Posted on on August 23, 2017

by Meera Viswanathan, Melissa McPheeters, M. Hassan Murad, Mary Butler, Emily E. Devine, Michele P. Dyson, Jeanne-Marie Guise, Leila C. Kahwati, Jeremy N. V. Miles, Sally C. Morton


Systematic reviews of complex interventions can vary widely in purpose, data availability and heterogeneity, and stakeholder expectations.


This article addresses the uncertainty that systematic reviewers face in selecting methods for reviews of complex interventions. Specifically, it lays out parameters for systematic reviewers to consider when selecting analytic approaches that best answer the questions at hand and suggests analytic techniques that may be appropriate in different circumstances.


Systematic reviews of complex interventions comprising multiple questions may use multiple analytic approaches. Parameters to consider when choosing analytic methods for complex interventions include nature and timing of the decision (clinical practice guideline, policy, or other); purpose of the review; extent of existing evidence; logistic factors such as the timeline, process, and resources for deciding the scope of the review; and value of information to be obtained from choosing specific systematic review methods. Reviewers may elect to revise their analytic approach based on new or changing considerations during the course of the review but should guard against bias through transparency of reporting.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.