What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review

Abstract

BackgroundA 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.MethodsWe 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.DiscussionThis 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.

Experiences in the war zone, shared narratives, and shifting identities: Systematic review of qualitative research.

“…Meta-ethnography and interpretive synthesis are the equivalent process of combing evidence in research and theory-generation for qualitative review (Noblit & Hare, 1988). Grounded theory allows for the constant evolution of theory-generation from the concepts and ideas that emerge from primary research data (Kastner et al, 2012). It is not the central aim of this review to explain in detail all of the themes from each of the studies included in the review.…”

“…As described above, there are different processes for identifying themes in qualitative research (Barnett-Page et al, 2009;Kastner et al, 2012). There are also a number of ways to synthesize findings from multiple studies.…”

Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration

“…using meta-ethnography, realist review, or thematic analysis) (Kastner et al 2012). When reporting the use of these methods, authors should use the relevant, method-specific reporting guidance to transparently report their methods (e.g.…”

Interpreting Nursing Metatheory through Complexity Integration Nursing Theory: A Scoping Review

“…Moher, Stewart, and Shekelle (2015) agreed and emphasized: "the scoping review, when what is needed is not detailed answers to specific questions but rather an overview of a broad field" [29]. Nurse researchers, as well as numerous other disciplines' researchers, utilized scoping reviewsfor synthesizing research evidence and as a form of knowledge synthesis even though no agreed-upon unifying scoping review terminology, definition, definitive procedure, or purposeexist [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. However, the methodological steps outlined in the Arksey and O'Malley [17] framework published in 2005 and further enhanced by Levac et al [18] in 2010 are the most cited protocol for conducting scoping reviews across disciplines [20][21].…”