The breadth of the review questions addressed in these reviews also creates challenges for the reporting the depth of detail in each part of the review to provide the necessary transparency for accountability and quality appraisal. Both of these approaches ask broad questions and consider many types of evidence to address them and so for these reviews their methodologies do not necessarily reflect the methodologies of the primary studies. This commentary considers two specific types of systematic review, meta-narrative synthesis and realist synthesis, to accompany the publication in BMC Medicine of publication standards for the reporting of such reviews. This distinction between aggregating and configuring has some similarities to, but does not map directly on to, the rather imprecise distinction between quantitative and qualitative research. Aggregative reviews tend to use a priori methods using predefined concepts and their findings are used to inform instrumental decision making configuring reviews tend to use iterative methods using emergent concepts and their findings are used to inform through enlightenment. One important dimension of difference is whether reviews ask questions and use methodologies that predominantly aim to aggregate information with a prior determined conceptual framework, or whether they predominantly interpret, configure and arrange theories and concepts. The extent of this possible variation suggests the need for a specification of the dimensions of difference between reviews rather than a simple classification of review types. Reviews now vary in their questions and theoretical and ideological assumptions, general methodological approach, specific methods, studies included, the components of the review, and the breadth and depth and 'work done' by the review. The burgeoning of different methods of review is therefore to be welcomed. Until recently, however, the term systematic review has been seen by some as synonymous with reviews assessing the efficacy of interventions by considering experimentally controlled outcome studies. In the health and social sciences there is a rich diversity of these research questions and methodologies. Also, meta ethnography uses methods of analysis that relate to ethnography. So, for example, statistical meta analysis of randomized controlled trials has similarities with the analysis of individual trials. In many cases, research reviews employ methodologies similar to the methodologies of the studies that they review. Methodological debates in relation to reviews of research tend to reflect similar debates in primary research. Primary research and reviews of such research both address similar research questions and use similar methodological approaches. Expansion in methods of systematic review
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |