This article documents and reflects on gender-based Contextual Bible Study (CBS) work on 2 Samuel 13:1–22 over more than thirty-five years, much of it shaped by work with Anglican communities. CBS work on the story of the abuse of Tamar provides a shape to the article, beginning with the identification of the Church by women survivors of violence as the silencer of Tamar, then of the Church as the abuser of Tamar, then of the Church as the excluder of Tamar in its lectionaries and liturgies and then of the Church as abandoning Tamar with impunity. The article summons the Church, though a CBS on 2 Samuel 13:21, to hear the summons of Tamar to change.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to synthesize best practices for addressing clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs).

Methods: We abstracted information from guidance documents and methods manuals made available by international organizations that develop systematic reviews and HTAs. We searched PubMed® to identify studies on clinical heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. Two authors independently abstracted and assessed relevant information.

Results: Methods manuals offer various definitions of clinical heterogeneity. In essence, clinical heterogeneity is considered variability in study population characteristics, interventions, and outcomes across studies. It can lead to effect-measure modification or statistical heterogeneity, which is defined as variability in estimated treatment effects beyond what would be expected by random error alone. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity are closely intertwined but they do not have a one-to-one relationship. The presence of statistical heterogeneity does not necessarily indicate that clinical heterogeneity is the causal factor. Methodological heterogeneity, biases, and random error can also cause statistical heterogeneity, alone or in combination with clinical heterogeneity.

Conclusions: Identifying potential modifiers of treatment effects (i.e., effect-measure modifiers) is important for researchers conducting systematic reviews and HTAs. Recognizing clinical heterogeneity and clarifying its implications helps decision makers to identify patients and patient populations who benefit the most, who benefit the least, and who are at greatest risk of experiencing adverse outcomes from a particular intervention.

This article argues that context is an important fourth factor, alongside the more familiar three, in understanding Anglicanism in (Southern) Africa. As imperialism was an important part of the early context of the Bible’s presence within Southern African Anglicanism, the bulk of the present article charts the contours of imperial Southern African Anglicanism. Having mapped this territory, the article then probes what a postcolonial analysis of Southern African Anglican biblical interpretation might look like, outlining two related components: a descriptive component and an interventionist component. The descriptive task asks how Southern African Anglicans have read the Scriptures, and the interventionist task asks how Southern African Anglicans should read the Scriptures. The former requires a careful Foucault-like ‘archaeological’ analysis and the latter a recognition of the contextually-related resources of African biblical scholarship.