4.6 Article

Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 43-49

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.022

关键词

Systematic review; Knowledge synthesis; Concept synthesis; critical interpretive synthesis; Integrative review; Meta-synthesis; Meta ethnography; Metastudy; Meta-interpretation narrative synthesis; Realist review

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Knowledge Synthesis grant [KST-116633]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare and contrast different knowledge synthesis methods and map their specific steps through a scoping review to gain a better understanding of how to select the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions of complex evidence. Study design and setting: Electronic databases were searched to identify studies reporting emerging knowledge synthesis methods (e.g., Realist review) across multidisciplinary fields. Two reviewers independently selected studies and abstracted data for each article. Results: We synthesized diverse, often conflicting evidence to identify 12 unique knowledge synthesis methods and 13 analysis methods. We organized the 12 full knowledge synthesis methods according to their purpose, outputs and applicability for practice and policy, as well as general guidance on formulating the research question. To make sense of the overlap across these knowledge synthesis methods, we derived a conceptual algorithm to elucidate the process for selecting the optimal knowledge synthesis methods for particular research questions. Conclusion: These findings represent a preliminary understanding on which we will base further advancement of knowledge in this field. As part of next steps, we will convene a meeting of international leaders in the field aimed at clarifying emerging knowledge synthesis approaches. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据