Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?

European Journal of Clinical Investigation

Volumn 48, Issue 6, 2018, Pages

  Greenhalgh, Trisha ^a   Thorne, Sally ^b   Malterud, Kirsti ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c Regional Centre for Child and Youth Mental Health and Child Welfare   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; NARRATIVE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TIME; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LITERATURE; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; NARRATION; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85045283646     PISSN: 00142972     EISSN: 13652362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/eci.12931     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Mulrow CD, Thacker SB, Pugh JA. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:613-615.
2. Faggion CM, Bakas NP, Wasiak J. A survey of prevalence of narrative and systematic reviews in five major medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:176.
3. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, vol. 4. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
4. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
5. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225-234.
6. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.
7. Pedersen BK. Anti-inflammatory effects of exercise: role in diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Eur J Clin Invest. 2017;47:600-611.
8. Williams R, Aspinall R, Bellis M, et al. Addressing liver disease in the UK: a blueprint for attaining excellence in health care and reducing premature mortality from lifestyle issues of excess consumption of alcohol, obesity, and viral hepatitis. Lancet. 2014;384:1953-1997.
9. Cannon JW. Hemorrhagic Shock. N Eng J Med. 2018;378:370-379.
10. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71-72.
11. Alper BS, Haynes RB. EBHC pyramid 5.0 for accessing preappraised evidence and guidance. BMJ. 2016;21:123-125.
12. Whitty CJ. What makes an academic paper useful for health policy? BMC Med. 2015;13:301.
13. Malterud K. The art and science of clinical knowledge: evidence beyond measures and numbers. The Lancet. 2001;358:397-400.
14. Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D. A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. CAIS. 2014;34:12.
15. Nevo I, Slonim-Nevo V. The myth of evidence-based practice: towards evidence-informed practice. Br J Soc Work. 2011;41:1176-1197.
16. Morton S, Berg A, Levit L, Eden J. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
17. Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35.
18. Greenhalgh T. Outside the box: why are cochrane reviews so boring? Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62:371-371.
19. Ioannidis J. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94:485-514.
20. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. Oxford: Wiley; 2008.
21. Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3496.
22. Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Noyes J, et al. Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1230-1243.
23. Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Rev. 2017;6:61.
24. Pluye P. Mixed kinds of evidence: synthesis designs and critical appraisal for systematic mixed studies reviews including qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. Evid-Based Med. 2015;20:79.
25. Pluye P, Hong QN, Bush PL, Vedel I. Opening-up the definition of systematic literature review: the plurality of worldviews, methodologies and methods for reviews and syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:2-5.
26. MacLure M. ‘Clarity bordering on stupidity’: where's the quality in systematic review? J Edu Policy. 2005;20:393-416.
27. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:21.
28. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013;11:20.
29. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:417-430.
30. Paterson BL, Canam C. Meta-study of Qualitative Health Research: A Practical Guide to Meta-analysis and Meta-synthesis, vol. 3. London, UK: Sage; 2001.
31. Thorne S. Metasynthetic madness: what kind of monster have we created? Qual Health Res. 2017;27:3-12.
32. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52:546-553.
33. Torraco RJ. Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2005;4:236-367. INSERT
34. Saunders MN, TRojon C. On the attributes of a critical literature review. Coaching. 2011;4:158-162.
35. Randolph JJ. A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. PARE. 2009;14:1-13.
36. Byrne JA. Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:12.
37. Thorne S, Sawatzky R. Particularizing the general: Sustaining theoretical integrity in the context of an evidence-based practice agenda. Adv Nurs Sci. 2014;37:5-18.
38. Merton RK. Science and the social order. Philos Sci. 1938;5:321-337.
39. Webster J, Watson RT. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 2002;26:xiii-xxiii.
40. Malterud K, Bjelland AK, Elvbakken KT. Evidence-based medicine–an appropriate tool for evidence-based health policy? A case study from Norway. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:15.
41. Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ. 2014;348:g3725.
42. Levin A. The cochrane collaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:309-312.
43. Greenhalgh T, Shaw S, A'Court C. Understanding heart failure; explaining telehealth–a hermeneutic systematic review. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17:156.
44. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:45-53.