Lessons from a systematic review of effects of multisystemic therapy

In this article, I consider methods used to review and synthesize results of multiple studies of the effects of social interventions. Traditional narrative reviews are subject to many sources of bias; thus, there is a burgeoning body of literature on the science of research synthesis. I describe current efforts to bridge the gap between the science and practice of research synthesis and one systematic review that aims to do this. A fully systematic review of results of controlled studies of the effects of multisystemic therapy (MST) points to inconsistent and incomplete reports on primary outcome studies, important variations in the implementation and integrity of randomized experiments, errors of omission and interpretation in previous reviews, and findings that differ from those of prior, published reviews. Implications for primary outcome research, publication standards, and research synthesis are considered.