Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion

被引:220
作者
McArthur, Alexa [1 ]
Klugarova, Jitka [2 ]
Yan, Hu [3 ]
Florescu, Silvia [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Inst, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
[2] Joanna Briggs Inst, Czech Republ Middle European Ctr Evidence Based H, Olomouc, Czech Republic
[3] Fudan Univ, Joanna Briggs Inst, Fudan Evidence Based Nursing Ctr, Shanghai 200433, Peoples R China
[4] Joanna Briggs Inst, Romanian Ctr Evidence Based Publ Hlth, Bucharest, Romania
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTHCARE | 2015年 / 13卷 / 03期
关键词
expert opinion; meta-synthesis; narrative; systematic review; text;
D O I
10.1097/XEB.0000000000000060
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background:Evidence-based healthcare focuses on the need to use interventions that are supported by the best available and most up-to-date evidence or knowledge. Many clinical questions cannot be fully answered by evidence derived from quantitative or qualitative research designs alone, since many areas in healthcare are supported by clinicians' tacit knowledge derived from their clinical experiences. In this situation, evidence generated from a systematic review of text and opinion may be required as the best available evidence. The aim of this study is to highlight the importance and role of expert opinion synthesis in healthcare, and present results of an international methodological group review.Methods:A methodological group was formed to review this approach, and update the guidance and processes for undertaking a systematic review of text and opinion.Results:The methodology of systematic reviews of text and opinion had already been developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We reviewed and updated several steps in the process, such as inclusion criteria, search strategy, critical appraisal and data extraction.Conclusions:The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for the systematic review of text and opinion is unique, and continuously evolving and being further developed. Systematic reviews of text and opinion may be considered as legitimate sources of evidence, especially when there is an absence of other research designs.
引用
收藏
页码:188 / 195
页数:8
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength [J].
Andrews, Jeffrey C. ;
Schuenemann, Holger J. ;
Oxman, Andrew D. ;
Pottie, Kevin ;
Meerpohl, Joerg J. ;
Coello, Pablo Alonso ;
Rind, David ;
Montori, Victor M. ;
Brito, Juan Pablo ;
Norris, Susan ;
Elbarbary, Mahmoud ;
Post, Piet ;
Nasser, Mona ;
Shukla, Vijay ;
Jaeschke, Roman ;
Brozek, Jan ;
Djulbegovic, Ben ;
Guyatt, Gordon .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2013, 66 (07) :726-735
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2014, SUPPORTING DOCUMENT
[3]  
Joanna Briggs Institute, 2014, J BRIGGS I SYST REV, V2014
[4]  
Jordan Z, 2011, SYNTHESIS SCI HEALTH
[5]  
Konno R, 2013, JBI DATABASE SYST RE, V11, P90
[6]  
Lockwood C, 2013, JBI DATABASE SYST RE, V11, P72
[7]   THE NARRATIVE NATURE OF CLINICAL REASONING [J].
MATTINGLY, C .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, 1991, 45 (11) :998-1005
[8]   Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach [J].
Munn, Zachary ;
Porritt, Kylie ;
Lockwood, Craig ;
Aromataris, Edoardo ;
Pearson, Alan .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2014, 14
[9]   Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't - It's about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence [J].
Sackett, DL ;
Rosenberg, WMC ;
Gray, JAM ;
Haynes, RB ;
Richardson, WS .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1996, 312 (7023) :71-72
[10]  
Stephen AI, 2014, JBI DATABASE SYST RE, V12, P77