Mixed kinds of evidence: Synthesis designs and critical appraisal for systematic mixed studies reviews including qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies

Evidence-Based Medicine

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 79-

  Pluye, Pierre ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; LETTER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MIXED METHOD STUDY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; STUDY DESIGN; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS;

EID: 84928128572     PISSN: 13565524     EISSN: 14736810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2014-110158     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Shaw RL, Larkin M, Flowers P. Expanding the evidence within evidence-based healthcare: thinking about the context, acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Evid Based Med 2014;19:201-3.
2. Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annu Rev Public Health 2014;35:29-45.
3. Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, et al. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud 2009;46:529-46.
4. Crowe M, Sheppard L. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: alternative tool structure is proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:79-89.
5. Souto RQ, Khanassov V, Hong QN, et al. Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the mixed methods appraisal tool. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52:500-1.