Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence

نویسندگان

  • Quan Nha Hong
  • Pierre Pluye
  • Mathieu Bujold
  • Maggy Wassef
چکیده

BACKGROUND Systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence can provide a rich understanding of complex phenomena. This type of review is increasingly popular, has been used to provide a landscape of existing knowledge, and addresses the types of questions not usually covered in reviews relying solely on either quantitative or qualitative evidence. Although several typologies of synthesis designs have been developed, none have been tested on a large sample of reviews. The aim of this review of reviews was to identify and develop a typology of synthesis designs and methods that have been used and to propose strategies for synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence. METHODS A review of systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence was performed. Six databases were searched from inception to December 2014. Reviews were included if they were systematic reviews combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. The included reviews were analyzed according to three concepts of synthesis processes: (a) synthesis methods, (b) sequence of data synthesis, and (c) integration of data and synthesis results. RESULTS A total of 459 reviews were included. The analysis of this literature highlighted a lack of transparency in reporting how evidence was synthesized and a lack of consistency in the terminology used. Two main types of synthesis designs were identified: convergent and sequential synthesis designs. Within the convergent synthesis design, three subtypes were found: (a) data-based convergent synthesis design, where qualitative and quantitative evidence is analyzed together using the same synthesis method, (b) results-based convergent synthesis design, where qualitative and quantitative evidence is analyzed separately using different synthesis methods and results of both syntheses are integrated during a final synthesis, and (c) parallel-results convergent synthesis design consisting of independent syntheses of qualitative and quantitative evidence and an interpretation of the results in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS Performing systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence is challenging because of the multiple synthesis options. The findings provide guidance on how to combine qualitative and quantitative evidence. Also, recommendations are made to improve the conducting and reporting of this type of review.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Mixed kinds of evidence: synthesis designs and critical appraisal for systematic mixed studies reviews including qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies

The present letter is to thank Drs Shaw, Larkin and Flowers for their enlightening article entitled ‘Expanding the evidence within evidence-based healthcare: thinking about the context, acceptability and feasibility of interventions’, and provide complementary information to your readership about synthesis designs and critical appraisal for systematic mixed studies reviews (ie, reviews that inc...

متن کامل

Reporting quality of submissions to the National Conferences on Electronic Learning in Medical Education: implications from Iranian research performance

Background: Reporting quality of research on medical education has come under scrutiny in recent years in wake of empirical evidence. Poor reporting quality of published abstracts may distract readers from careful reading of research evidence or in a worst case mislead scientists. Main objective of this study was to evaluate the extent and quality of the submitted abstracts to the 3rd and 4th N...

متن کامل

A PRISMA assessment of reporting the quality of published dental systematic reviews in Iran, up to 2017

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure correct interpretation of study results by readers. Systematic reviews (SRs) are of critical importance in evidence-based dentistry. This study assessed the reporting quality of published dental SRs in Iran.METHODS: The PubMed and ISI electronic databases were searched to collect published Iranian dental SRs up to the end of...

متن کامل

The Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool for Use in Systematic Reviews: Addressing Questions of Prevalence

Background Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Key features of a systematic review include the creation of an a priori protocol, clear inclusion criteria, a structured and systematic search process, critical appraisal of studies, and a formal process of data extraction followed by methods to synthesize, or combin...

متن کامل

Some Notes on Critical Appraisal of Prevalence Studies; Comment on: “The Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool for Use in Systematic Reviews Addressing Questions of Prevalence”

Decisions in healthcare should be based on information obtained according to the principles of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). An increasing number of systematic reviews are published which summarize the results of prevalence studies. Interpretation of the results of these reviews should be accompanied by an appraisal of the methodological quality of the included data and studies. The critical a...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره 6  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2017