ReviewRevista de salud publica (Bogota, Colombia)2025
[How to select a qualitative meta-synthesis for evidence-based practice in health].
Review in Revista de salud publica (Bogota, Colombia), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Qualitative meta-synthesis allows for the interpretation and integration of knowledge to understand phenomena, inform clinical practice, guide policy, and develop theory. In this way, it becomes a key strategy to overcome reductionist approaches that distort reality. Objective: To identify the methodological and practical contributions of qualitative meta-synthesis to evidence-based practice. Method: A narrative review was conducted. The search covered PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Connected Papers. Results: Thirty articles were included, identifying six types of meta-synthesis: meta-ethnography, meta-study, meta-synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis, narrative synthesis, and qualitative meta-synthesis. Conclusion: Meta-synthesis is a powerful method in Evidence-Based Practice, enabling critical interpretation of qualitative studies. Each approach responds to different needs: meta-ethnography and qualitative meta-synthesis generate new interpretations, while meta-study and critical interpretive synthesis provide rigorous analyses. The choice of the appropriate method depends on the phenomenon under study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.