The "quality" of JBI qualitative research synthesis: a methodological investigation into the adherence of meta-aggregative systematic reviews to reporting standards and methodological guidance.
Journal
JBI evidence synthesis
ISSN: 2689-8381
Titre abrégé: JBI Evid Synth
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101764819
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
entrez:
14
5
2021
pubmed:
15
5
2021
medline:
22
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Approaches to the synthesis of qualitative research have existed for more than 20 years and have evolved significantly during that time. One common approach is meta-aggregation, as advocated by JBI. There is now a considerable number of published reviews that claim to follow the JBI approach to meta-aggregation. This methodological review sought to determine the extent to which a selection of these reviews follow the available guidance, with a view to establishing compliance and identifying potential areas for improvement. The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports (JBISRIR) was searched from 2015 to 2017 to identify all qualitative systematic reviews following the JBI approach. Citations were screened by two independent reviewers, and data extraction was conducted independently by at least two reviewers. Eligible reviews were then assessed against the JBI methodological guidance and ENTREQ statement to determine compliance. From the search, 33 health care-related reviews that met the inclusion criteria were identified. Several areas were identified where reviewers consistently made errors or did not clearly report their findings, including study screening and selection issues (particularly how this was done and by whom), transparent rationale for study exclusion, who performed data extraction and how, processes for developing synthesized findings, and the development and presentation of recommendations. Although qualitative synthesis has come a long way, there are still some areas for improvement in conduct and reporting. This has implications for those who develop guidance and provide education to systematic reviewers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33989268
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00364
pii: 02174543-202105000-00006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1119-1139Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 JBI.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, Pearson A. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:108.
Pearson A. Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Reports 2004;2:45–64.
Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13 (3):179–187.
Hannes K, Lockwood C, Pearson A. A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2010;20 (12):1736–1743.
Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M. Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res 2004;14 (10):1342–1365.
JBIJoanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual: 2011 edition. Adelaide: JBI; 2011.
Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009;9:59.
Finfgeld-Connett D. Meta-synthesis of caring in nursing. J Clin Nurs 2008;17 (2):196–204.
Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs 2005;50 (2):204–211.
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, California: Sage; 1988.
Carroll C, Booth A. Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: Is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Res Synth Methods 2015;6 (2):149–154.
Garratt D, Hodkinson P. Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria?—A hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma. Qual Inq 1998;4 (4):515–539.
Majid U, Vanstone M. Appraising qualitative research for evidence syntheses: a compendium of quality appraisal tools. Qual Health Res 2018;28 (13):2115–2131.
Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med 2015;12 (10):e1001895.
Hannes K, Lockwood C. Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs 2011;67 (7):1632–1642.
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Res Methodol 2012;12:181.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA GroupPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6 (7):e1000097.
France EF, Ring N, Thomas R, Noyes J, Maxwell M, Jepson R. A methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:1.
Munn Z, Dias M, Tufanaru C, Porritt K, Stern C, Jordan Z, et al. Adherence of meta-aggregative systematic reviews to reporting standards and methodological guidance: a methodological review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2019;17 (4):444–450.
JBIJoanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. Adelaide: JBI; 2014.
Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. GRADE Working GroupGrading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328 (7454):1490.
Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci 2018;13: (suppl 1): 2.
Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, Pearson A. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14 (1):1–7.
Lockwood C, Porrit K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, et al. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Reviewer's Manual [internet]. Adelaide: JBI; 2017 [cited 2017 May 30]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
Lockwood C, Pearson A. A comparison of meta-aggregation and meta-ethnography as qualitative review methods. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2013.
Blegen MA, Tripp-Reimer T. Implications of nursing taxonomies for middle-range theory development. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1997;19 (3):37–49.
Colley S. Nursing theory: its importance to practice. Nurs Stand 2003;17 (46):33–37.
Kislov R, Pope C, Martin GP, Wilson PM. Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implement Sci 2019;14 (1):103.
Bergdahl E. Is meta-synthesis turning rich descriptions into thin reductions? A criticism of meta-aggregation as a form of qualitative synthesis. Nurs Inq 2019;26 (1):e12273.
Estabrooks CA, Field PA, Morse JM. Aggregating qualitative findings: an approach to theory development. Qual Health Res 1994;4 (4):503–511.
Centre for Reviews and DisseminationSystematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD, University of York; 2008.
Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, van der Wilt GJ, et al. Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;99:41–52.
Tufanaru C. Theoretical foundations of meta-aggregation: insights from Husserlian henomenology and American pragmatism [thesis]. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide; 2015.