Reading, writing and systematic review

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Volumn 64, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 104-110

  Sandelowski, Margarete ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Qualitative research; Quantitative research; Research methods; Resisting reader; Systematic review; Textual practices

Indexed keywords

EPIDEMIOLOGY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LITERATURE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; READING; REVIEW; WRITING;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COMMUNICATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; READING; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; WRITING;

EID: 52249104913     PISSN: 03092402     EISSN: 13652648     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04813.x     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Barbour R.S. Barbour M. (2003) Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 9, 179 186.
2. Bazerman C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
3. Bushman B.J. Wells G.L. (2001) Narrative impressions of literature: the availability bias and the corrective properties of meta-analytic approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27, 1123 1130.
4. Campbell R., Pound P., Pope C., Britten N., Pill R., Morgan M. Donovan J. (2003) Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social Science & Medicine 56, 671 684.
5. Downe S., Simpson L. Trafford K. (2006) Expert intrapartum care: a meta-synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 57, 127 140.
6. Duedahl T.H., Romsing J., Moiniche S. Dahl J.B. (2006) A qualitative systematic review of peri-operative pain. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 50, 1 13.
7. Ezzo J., Bausell B., Moerman D.E., Berman B. Hadhazy V. (2001) Reviewing the reviews: how strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 17, 457 466.
8. Fetterley J. (1978) The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
9. Gebel K., Bauman A.E. Petticrew M. (2007) The physical environment and physical activity: a critical appraisal of review articles. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32, 361 369.
10. Greenhalgh T., Robert G., Macfarlane F., Bate P., Kyriakidou O. Peacock R. (2005) Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine 61, 417 430.
11. Hammersley M. (2001) On 'systematic' reviews of research literatures: a 'narrative' response to Evans & Benefield. British Educational Research Journal 27, 543 554.
12. Harden A., Garcia J., Oliver S., Rees R., Shepherd J., Brunton G. Oakley A. (2004) Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 58, 794 800.
13. Harrison L.L. (1996) Putting it all together: the importance of integrative research reviews and meta-analyses in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 24, 224 225 (editorial).
14. Higgins J.P.T. Green S. (eds 2006) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Retrieved from http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/Handbook4.2.6Sep2006.pdf on 13 July 2007.
15. Lang A., Edwards N. Fleiszer A. (2007) Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60, 595 597.
16. Lather P. (1999) To be of use: the work of reviewing. Review of Educational Research 69, 2 7.
17. Latour B. Woolgar S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
18. Law J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge, London.
19. Linde K. Willich S.N. (2003) How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96, 17 22.
20. MacLure M. (2005) 'Clarity bordering on stupidity': where's the quality in systematic review? Journal of Education Policy 20, 393 416.
21. Maxwell J.A. (2006) Literature reviews of, and for, educational research: a commentary on Boote and Beile's 'scholars before researchers'. Educational Researcher 35, 28 31.
22. Moreira T. (2007) Entangled evidence: knowledge making in systematic reviews in healthcare. Sociology of Health & Illness 29, 180 197.
23. Mykhalovskiy E. (2003) Evidence-based medicine: ambivalent reading and the clinical recontextualization of science. Health 7, 331 352.
24. Noblit G.W. Hare R.D. (1988) Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
25. Ogilvie D., Egan M., Hamilton V. Petticrew M. (2005) Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. best available evidence: how low should you go? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59, 886 892.
26. Paterson B.L., Thorne S.E., Canam C. Jillings C. (2001) Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research: A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
27. Pawson R. (2006) Digging for nuggets: how 'bad' research can yield 'good' evidence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9, 127 142.
28. Retsas A. (2000) Barriers to using research evidence in nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing 31, 599 606.
29. Sandelowski M. (2003) Tables or tableaux? Writing and reading mixed methods studies. In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (Tashakkori A. Teddlie C., eds). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 321 350.
30. Sandelowski M. (2004) Using qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 14, 1366 1386.
31. Sandelowski M. Barroso J. (2007) Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Springer, New York.
32. Sandelowski M., Barroso J. Voils C.I. (2007a) Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Research in Nursing & Health 30, 99 111.
33. Sandelowski M., Voils C.I. Barroso J. (2007b) Comparability work and the management of difference in research synthesis studies. Social Science & Medicine 64, 236 247.
34. Traynor M. (1999) The problem of dissemination: evidence and ideology. Nursing Inquiry 6, 187 197.
35. Voils C.I., Sandelowski M., Barroso J. Hasselblad V. (2008). Making sense of qualitative and quantitative findings in mixed research synthesis studies. Field Methods 20, 3 25.
36. West S., King V., Carey T.S., Lohr K.N., McKoy N. Sutton S.F. et al. (2002) Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47. AHRQ Pub. No. 02-E016. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.