Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31725951›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2020

Developing methods for the overarching synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: The interweave synthesis approach.

Jo Thompson Coon, Ruth Gwernan-Jones, Ruth Garside, Michael Nunns, Liz Shaw, G J Melendez-Torres, Darren Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jo Thompson CoonCollege of Health and Medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5161-0234
Ruth Gwernan-JonesCollege of Health and Medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Ruth GarsideEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter, United Kingdom.
Michael NunnsCollege of Health and Medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Liz ShawCollege of Health and Medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
G J Melendez-TorresCollege of Health and Medicine, University of Exeter, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Darren MooreGraduate School of Education, University of Exeter, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Funding

Department of Health HTA/14/157/06Health Technology Assessment Programme Project number HTA 10/140/02Health Technology Assessment Programme Project number HTA 14/157/06National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West PeninsulaNIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme HTA 10/140/02NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme HTA 14/157/06
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incorporation of evidence derived from multiple research designs into one single synthesis can enhance the utility of systematic reviews making them more worthwhile, useful, and insightful. Methodological guidance for mixed-methods synthesis continues to emerge and evolve but broadly involves a sequential, parallel, or convergent approach according to the degree of independence between individual syntheses before they are combined. We present two case studies in which we used novel and innovative methods to draw together the findings from individual but related quantitative and qualitative syntheses to aid interpretation of the overall evidence base. Our approach moved beyond making a choice between parallel, sequential, or convergent methods to interweave the findings of individual reviews and offers three key innovations to mixed-methods synthesis methods: The use of intersubjective questions to understand the findings of the individual reviews through different lenses, Immersion of key reviewers in the entirety of the evidence base, and Commencing the process during the final stages of the synthesis of individual reviews, at a point where reviewers are developing an understanding of initial findings. Underlying our approach is the process of exploration and identification of links between and across review findings, an approach that is fundamental to all evidence syntheses but usually occurs at the level of the study. Adapting existing methods for exploring and identifying patterns and links between and across studies to interweave the findings between and across reviews may prove valuable.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineQualitative ResearchResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityBiomedical ResearchDecision MakingHumansMental Disordersevidence synthesismethodsmixed methodsqualitativequantitative

Identifiers

PMID31725951
PMCPMC7383598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.