What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review
A knowledge synthesis attempts to summarize all pertinent studies on a specific question, can improve the understanding of inconsistencies in diverse evidence, and can identify gaps in research evidence to define future research agendas. Knowledge synthesis activities in healthcare have largely focused on systematic reviews of interventions. However, a wider range of synthesis methods has emerged in the last decade addressing different types of questions (e.g., realist synthesis to explore mediating mechanisms and moderators of interventions). Many different knowledge synthesis methods exist in the literature across multiple disciplines, but locating these, particularly for qualitative research, present challenges. There is a need for a comprehensive manual for synthesis methods (quantitative/qualitative or mixed), outlining how these methods are related, and how to match the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer a research question. The objectives of this scoping review are to: 1) conduct a systematic search of the literature for knowledge synthesis methods across multi-disciplinary fields; 2) compare and contrast the different knowledge synthesis methods; and, 3) map out the specific steps to conducting the knowledge syntheses to inform the development of a knowledge synthesis methods manual/tool.
We will search relevant electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, CINAHL), grey literature, and discipline-based listservs. The scoping review will consider all study designs including qualitative and quantitative methodologies (excluding economic analysis or clinical practice guideline development), and identify knowledge synthesis methods across the disciplines of health, education, sociology, and philosophy. Two reviewers will pilot-test the screening criteria and data abstraction forms, and will independently screen the literature and abstract the data. A three-step synthesis process will be used to map the literature to our objectives.
This project represents the first attempt to broadly and systematically identify, define and classify knowledge synthesis methods (i.e., less traditional knowledge synthesis methods). We anticipate that our results will lead to an accepted taxonomy for less traditional knowledge synthesis methods, and to the development and implementation of a methods manual for these reviews which will be relevant to a wide range of knowledge users, including researchers, funders, and journal editors.
- Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB: Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997,126(5):376–380.
- Key elements of a population health approach Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/approach-approche/appr-eng.php#key_elements (Accessed June 19, 2012). Available at: (Accessed June 19, 2012).
- Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Guyatt GH: Reviewing the reviewers: the quality of reporting in three secondary journals. CMAJ 2001,164(11):1573–1576.
- Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID: Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice. UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2009. CrossRef
- Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC: A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992,268(2):240–248. CrossRef
- Higgins JPT, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
- Greenhalgh T, Kristjansson E, Robinson V: Realist review to understand the efficacy of school feeding programmes. BMJ 2007,335(7625):858–861. CrossRef
- Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S: Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev 2012, 1:28. CrossRef
- Kastner M, Estey E, Perrier L, Graham ID, Grimshaw J, Straus SE: Understanding the relationship between the perceived characteristics of clinical practice guidelines and their uptake: a realist review. Impl Sci 2011, 6:69. CrossRef
- Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K: Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005,10(Suppl 1):21–34. CrossRef
- Kristjansson EA, Robinson V, Petticrew M, MacDonald B, Krasevec J, Janzen L, et al.: School feeding for improving the physical and psychosocial health of disadvantaged elementary school children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 1:CD004676.
- Ring N, Ritchie K, Mandava L, Jepson R: A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. Available at: http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/programmes/clinical__cost_effectiveness/shtg/synth_qualitative_research.aspx (Accessed on June 19, 2012). Available at: (Accessed on June 19, 2012).
- Shepperd S, Lewin S, Straus S, Clarke M, Eccles MP, Fitzpatrick R, et al.: Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Med 2009,6(8):e1000086. CrossRef
- Mazzocato P, Savage C, Brommels M, Aronsson H, Thor J: Lean thinking in healthcare: a realist review of the literature. Qual Saf Health Care 2010,19(5):376–382. CrossRef
- Thorne S, Paterson B: Shifting images of chronic illness. Image J Nurs Sch 1998,30(2):173–178. CrossRef
- Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Pawson R: Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ 2010, 10:12. CrossRef
- Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al.: Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Impl Sci 2012, 7:33. CrossRef
- Sutton AJ, Abrams KR: Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res 2001, 10:277–303. CrossRef
- Roberts KA, Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, Abrams KR, Jones DR: Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunization: a Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Lancet 2002, 360:1596–1599. CrossRef
- Stemler S: An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 2001, 7:17.
- Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, et al.: Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:35. CrossRef
- Droitcour J, Silberman G, Chelimsky E: Cross-design synthesis: a new form of metaanalysis for combining results from randomised clinical trials and medical-practice databases. Int Journal of Tech Assessment in Health Care 1993, 9:440–927. CrossRef
- Banning J: Ecological triangulation: an approach for qualitative meta-synthesis. Available at: http://mycahs.colostate.edu/james.h.banning/PDFs/Ecological%20Triangualtion.pdf (Accessed on June 19, 2012). Available at: (Accessed on June 19, 2012).
- Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. Br Med J 2000, 320:114–116. CrossRef
- Brunton G, Oliver S, Oliver K, Lorenc T: A Synthesis of Research Addressing Children’s, Young People’s and Parents’ Views of Walking and Cycling for Transport. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006.
- Strauss AL, Corbin J: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1998.
- Noblit GW, Hare RD: Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.
- Weed M: “Meta interpretation”: a method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2005,6(1; Art. 37):1–18.
- Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R: Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2005,61(2):417–430. CrossRef
- Paterson BL, Thorne SE, Canam C, Jillings C: Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001.
- Sandelowski M, Barroso J: Creating metasummaries of qualitative findings. Nurs Res 2003,52(4):226–233. CrossRef
- Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C: Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health 1997,20(4):365–371. CrossRef
- Pluye P, Grad R, Dunikowski LG, Stephenson R: Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: A literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Int J Med Inform 2005, 74:745–768. CrossRef
- Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J: A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. Int J Nurs Stud 2009,46(4):529–546. CrossRef
- Sandelowski M: Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In Handbook of Mixed Methods: Social and Behavioral Research. Edited by: Tashakkori A, Teddue C. London: Sage; 2003:321–350.
- Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005,10(1):45–53. CrossRef
- Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N, Roen K, Duffy S: Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Results of an ESRC funded research project. UK: University of Lancaster; 2006. Unpublished report.
- Yin R: Case study research, design and methods . In Applied Social Research Methods Series Vol 5. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage; 2003.
- Miles MB, Huberman AM: Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. London: Sage; 1994.
- Jensen L, Allen M: Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qual Health Res 1996,6(4):553–560. CrossRef
- Grant MJ, Booth A: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009, 26:91–108. CrossRef
- Yin R, Heald K: Using the case survey method to analyse policy studies. Admin Sci Q 1975, 20:371–381. CrossRef
- Pelz D: Use of innovation in innovating processes by local governments. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, CRUSK Institute for Social Research; 1981.
- Lucas PJ, Arai L, Baird B, Law C, Roberts HM: Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:4. CrossRef
- Mays N, Pope C, Popay J: Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005,10(1):6–20. CrossRef
- Thomas J: Harden A (2008) Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8:45. CrossRef
- Barnett-Page E, Thomas J: Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Method 2009, 9:59. CrossRef
- Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Social Res Method 2005, 8:19–31. CrossRef
- Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C: An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 2009,62(9):944–952. CrossRef
- World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health Available at: http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html. Accessed on July 3, 2012. Available at: . Accessed on July 3, 2012.
- Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al.: Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006,26(1):13–24. CrossRef
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/12/114/prepub
- What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Online Date
- August 2012
- Online ISSN
- BioMed Central
- Additional Links
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada
- 2. Continuing Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- 3. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- 4. Centre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- 5. Department of Medicine, Faculty of medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada