Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Wiley Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101543738 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1759-2887 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17592879 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Res Synth Methods Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: : Chichester : Wiley Blackwell
      Original Publication: Malden, MA : John Wiley & Sons, 2010-
    • Subject Terms:
    • Abstract:
      Using Toulmin's argumentation theory, we analysed the texts of systematic reviews in the area of workplace health promotion to explore differences in the modes of reasoning embedded in reports of narrative synthesis as compared with reports of meta-analysis. We used framework synthesis, grounded theory and cross-case analysis methods to analyse 85 systematic reviews addressing intervention effectiveness in workplace health promotion. Two core categories, or 'modes of reasoning', emerged to frame the contrast between narrative synthesis and meta-analysis: practical-configurational reasoning in narrative synthesis ('what is going on here? What picture emerges?') and inferential-predictive reasoning in meta-analysis ('does it work, and how well? Will it work again?'). Modes of reasoning examined quality and consistency of the included evidence differently. Meta-analyses clearly distinguished between warrant and claim, whereas narrative syntheses often presented joint warrant-claims. Narrative syntheses and meta-analyses represent different modes of reasoning. Systematic reviewers are likely to be addressing research questions in different ways with each method. It is important to consider narrative synthesis in its own right as a method and to develop specific quality criteria and understandings of how it is carried out, not merely as a complement to, or second-best option for, meta-analysis. © 2016 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
      (© 2016 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
    • References:
      BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 13;13:37. (PMID: 23497061)
      Health Commun. 2014;29(10):996-1008. (PMID: 24359318)
      J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008 Sep;62(9):764-77. (PMID: 18701725)
      BMJ. 2008 Jun 21;336(7658):1413-5. (PMID: 18566080)
      Artif Intell Med. 2012 Nov;56(3):173-90. (PMID: 23178172)
      BMC Med. 2014 May 09;12:74. (PMID: 24886246)
      Health Expect. 2008 Mar;11(1):72-84. (PMID: 18275404)
      Obes Rev. 2011 Jun;12(6):406-29. (PMID: 20546142)
      Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999 Fall;15(4):671-8. (PMID: 10645108)
      Spine J. 2009 Feb;9(2):147-68. (PMID: 19185272)
      Am J Prev Med. 2000 Jan;18(1 Suppl):35-43. (PMID: 10806978)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Nov;66(11):1230-43. (PMID: 23953082)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;66(9):982-93. (PMID: 23683848)
      BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6. (PMID: 18436948)
      Am J Prev Med. 2009 Oct;37(4):340-57. (PMID: 19765507)
      Eval Health Prof. 2013 Jun;36(2):247-67. (PMID: 22615497)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):376-90. (PMID: 24388291)
      Res Synth Methods. 2017 Mar;8(1):109-118. (PMID: 27860329)
      Obes Rev. 2010 May;11(5):371-9. (PMID: 19538441)
      Addiction. 2009 Mar;104(3):365-77. (PMID: 19207344)
      PLoS Med. 2015 Oct 27;12(10):e1001895. (PMID: 26506244)
      Int J Nurs Stud. 2004 Feb;41(2):141-50. (PMID: 14725778)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Nov;66(11):1209-14. (PMID: 23953085)
      Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jun 15;28(12):1290-9. (PMID: 12811274)
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;66(9):973-81. (PMID: 22981249)
      Sociol Health Illn. 2007 Mar;29(2):180-97. (PMID: 17381812)
    • Grant Information:
      MR/K024167/1 United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council; WMCLAHRC-2014-1 United Kingdom DH_ Department of Health
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: interpretive analysis; meta-analysis; narrative synthesis; systematic review
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20161119 Date Completed: 20170823 Latest Revision: 20220129
    • Publication Date:
    • Accession Number:
    • Accession Number:
    • Accession Number: