The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

http://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA-P%20Statement%20-%20Moher%20Sys%20Rev%20Jan%202015.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/57307/1/2016_Estarli_etal_RevEspNutrHumDiet.pdf

Ítems de referencia para publicar Protocolos de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: Declaración PRISMA-P 2015 Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/348/bmj.g1687.full.pdf

Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

Anthropogenic pressures on the Earth System have reached a scale where abrupt global environmental change can no longer be excluded. We propose a new approach to global sustainability in which we define planetary boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely. Transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems. We have identified nine planetary boundaries and, drawing upon current scientific understanding, we propose quantifications for seven of them. These seven are climate change (CO2 concentration in the atmosphere <350 ppm and/or a maximum change of +1 W m-2 in radiative forcing); ocean acidification (mean surface seawater saturation state with respect to aragonite ≥ 80% of pre-industrial levels); stratospheric ozone (<5% reduction in O3 concentration from pre-industrial level of 290 Dobson Units); biogeochemical nitrogen (N) cycle (limit industrial and agricultural fixation of N2 to 35 Tg N yr-1) and phosphorus (P) cycle (annual P inflow to oceans not to exceed 10 times the natural background weathering of P); global freshwater use (<4000 km3 yr-1 of consumptive use of runoff resources); land system change (<15% of the ice-free land surface under cropland); and the rate at which biological diversity is lost (annual rate of <10 extinctions per million species). The two additional planetary boundaries for which we have not yet been able to determine a boundary level are chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loading. We estimate that humanity has already transgressed three planetary boundaries: for climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and changes to the global nitrogen cycle. Planetary boundaries are interdependent, because transgressing one may both shift the position of other boundaries or cause them to be transgressed. The social impacts of transgressing boundaries will be a function of the social-ecological resilience of the affected societies. Our proposed boundaries are rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps. Filling these gaps will require major advancements in Earth System and resilience science. The proposed concept of "planetary boundaries" lays the groundwork for shifting our approach to governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development. Planetary boundaries define, as it were, the boundaries of the "planetary playing field" for humanity if we want to be sure of avoiding major human-induced environmental change on a global scale.

/pdf/planetary-boundaries-exploring-the-safe-operating-space-for-ir5ysgjg96.pdf

Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity

Evaluating complex interventions is complicated. The Medical Research Council9s evaluation framework (2000) brought welcome clarity to the task. Now the council has updated its guidance

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/337/bmj.a1655.full.pdf

Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance

Peter Craig, MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network Paul Dieppe, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Oxford Sally Macintyre, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit Susan Michie, Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, University College London Irwin Nazareth, MRC General Practice Research Framework Mark Petticrew, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/affiliated-programs/baltimore-neighborhood-research-consortium/Research_Libr/Macintyre2002.pdf

Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them?

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/57777/Understanding%20and%20representing%20place%20in%20health%20research%20a%20relational%20approach%20.pdf?sequence=1

Understanding and representing place in health research a relational approach

In Britain there has been a long tradition of research into associations between area of residence and health. Rarely has this involved investigating socio-economic or cultural features of areas that might influence health; usually studies use area level data, for example about specific pathogens or about levels of deprivation, as surrogates for individual level data, rather than being interested in the areas themselves. This paper reviews the literature on the relationship between area and health. It advocates directly studying features of the local social and physical environment which might promote or inhibit health, illustrating this approach with some findings from a study in the West of Scotland, and suggests that improvements in public health might be achieved by focusing on places as well as on people.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0047279400019310

Sally Macintyre

Papers

Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance

Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance

Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them?

Understanding and representing place in health research a relational approach

Area, Class and Health: Should we be Focusing on Places or People?