Skip to Main Content
Hunter Library
Research Guides
Western Carolina University

Health and Human Sciences (HHS)

https://researchguides.wcu.edu/hhs

Evidence review / synthesis methods

Review type Brief definition
Traditional review family
Critical review ‘Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)

Integrative Review

Also known as:

Integrative Synthesis

 Umbrella term for synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data. Can be used to guide the summary and analysis of literature in order to draw conclusions that provide a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon than existed prior to the review (Tricco et al., 2016b). More specifically, ‘The integrative review method is an approach (primarily within nursing research) that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non‐experimental research).’ (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005)
Narrative review Used to describe a ‘conventional’ review of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2016b)
Narrative summary An overview of the available evidence addressing a research question or set of research questions related to a single topic, often produced within a short timeframe (Khangura et al., 2012)
State of the art review ‘Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
Systematic review family
Cochrane review of effects ‘Cochrane Reviews are systematic summaries of evidence of the effects of healthcare interventions. They are intended to help people make practical decisions. For a review to be called a ‘Cochrane Review’ it must be in CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) or CMR (Cochrane Methodology Register). The specific methods used in a Review are described in the text of the review. Cochrane Reviews are prepared using Review Manager (RevMan) software provided by the Collaboration, and adhere to a structured format that is described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.’ (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2019)
Comparative effectiveness review Depicts how the relative benefits and harms of a range of options compare, rather than to answer a narrow question of whether a single therapy is safe and effective (Slutsky, Atkins, Chang & Sharp, 2010).

Diagnostic Systematic Review

Also known as:

Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review

 ‘Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy summarize the evidence about test accuracy. Ideally, they also investigate why the results may vary among studies, compare the performance of alternative tests, and help the reader to put the evidence in a clinical context’ (Leeflang, Deeks, Takwoingi & Macaskill, 2013)
Meta‐analysis ‘Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
Network meta‐analysis ‘A network meta‐analysis starts with a network of evidence: the relevant treatments and the clinical trials that have compared those treatments directly. Its structure is often readily apparent from a diagram in which each node represents a treatment (or perhaps a class of treatments), and each link or edge connects treatments that have been directly compared in one or more RCTs.’ (Hoaglin et al., 2011)
Prognostic review ‘To determine the overall prognosis for a condition, the link between specific prognostic factors and an outcome and/or prognostic/prediction models and prognostic tests.’ (Munn et al., 2018)
Psychometric review ‘To evaluate the psychometric properties of a certain test, normally to determine how the reliability and validity of a particular test or assessment.’ (Munn et al., 2018)
Review of economic evaluations ‘An economic evaluation identifies, measures, values and compares the costs and outcomes of a technology with its relevant comparator.’ (Kaunelis & Glanville, 2017)
Systematic review ‘Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)

Systematic review of Epidemiology Studies

Also known as:

Prevalence and/or Incidence Review Etiology and/or Risk Review

 A systematic review to determine the prevalence and/or incidence of a certain condition (Munn et al., 2018)
Review of review family

Review of Reviews

Also known as:

Overview

 (Generic): ‘summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics’ (Grant & Booth, 2009) (Specific): May also be used to refer to a Cochrane Overview of Reviews, which ‘are intended primarily to summarize multiple Cochrane Intervention reviews addressing the effects of two or more potential interventions for a single condition or health problem. In the absence of a relevant Cochrane Intervention review, Cochrane Overviews may additionally include systematic reviews published elsewhere.’ (Higgins & Green, 2011)
Umbrella review ‘Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document.’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
Rapid review family
Rapid Review (general guidance for all types. Specific types below) Also known as: Rapid Evidence Synthesis ‘a type of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a short period of time’ (Tricco et al., 2015)
Rapid evidence assessment ‘a process that is faster and less rigorous than a full systematic review but more rigorous than ad hoc searching, it uses a combination of key informant interviews and targeted literature searches to produce a report in a few days or weeks’ (betterevaluation.org, cited in Booth, 2016)
Rapid Realist Synthesis Also known as: Rapid Realist Review ‘Applies a realist approach to knowledge synthesis (“What works for whom under what circumstances?”) to produce a product that is useful to policy makers in responding to time‐sensitive and/or emerging issues within limited time and resources.’ (Booth, 2016, edited)
Qualitative Review family (Also known as: Experiential Reviews)
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES)

Qualitative evidence synthesis is the broad term, popularised within the Cochrane Collaboration, for the group of methods used to undertake systematic reviews of qualitative research evidence

Also known as: Qualitative Systematic Review:

‘Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for “themes” or “constructs” that lie in or across individual qualitative studies’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)

See also:

Qualitative Interpretive Meta‐synthesis (see below)

Qualitative Meta‐synthesis (see below)

Qualitative Research Synthesis (see below)

Qualitative Meta‐Summary
Qualitative Interpretive Meta‐synthesis Specifically within social work, a synthesis of qualitative studies that results in generation of a more in‐depth understanding of the phenomena studied that can be then used to develop theory and inform practice and policy. Methodology is designed to enable a synergistic understanding of phenomena with richness in diversity of settings, participants and qualitative traditions.
Qualitative meta‐synthesis Qualitative meta‐synthesis is an intentional and coherent approach to analysing data across qualitative studies. It enables researchers to identify a specific research question and then search for, select, appraise, summarise, and combine qualitative evidence to address the research question
Qualitative research synthesis Specifically within education, qualitative research synthesis, relies upon sophisticated interpretivist methods and is one of a range of refined approaches that has developed from efforts to offer synthesis methods with increasing levels of specialisation, criticality and interpretation
Best fit framework synthesis The ‘best fit’(framework synthesis) approach applies new methods to identify theories in a systematic manner, and to create the a priori framework for the (qualitative evidence) synthesis. Otherwise it uses an innovative combination of existing methods of quality assessment, analysis and synthesis to complete the (review) process (Carroll et al., 2013)
Framework synthesis An evidence product which ‘uses existing framework from stakeholder consultation or literature as a template for data extraction and analysis. Data not adequately explained by the existing framework is analysed inductively to create themes that populate a revised framework’ (Booth, 2016)
Meta‐aggregation The methodology of qualitative evidence synthesis that is ‘most transparently aligned with accepted conventions for the conduct of high‐quality systematic reviews. Meta‐aggregation is grounded in pragmatism and transcendental phenomenology.’ In a meta‐aggregative review ‘the reviewer avoids re‐interpretation of included studies, but instead accurately and reliably presents the findings of the included studies as intended by the original authors.’ (Lockwood, Munn & Porritt, 2015)
Meta‐Ethnography Also known as: Extended Meta‐Ethnography Meta‐Ethnography Review Method for synthesising qualitative research and for developing models that interpret findings across multiple studies (Tricco et al., 2016a). Synthesises qualitative research to develop ‘translations of qualitative studies into one another’ (i.e. reciprocal translation analysis). Interpretive approach that aims to provide a new interpretation of these studies or a new theory to explain research findings encountered, rather than a simple aggregation. Re‐analyses and compares the texts of published studies (rather than the original data of each) to produce a new interpretation. Involves induction and interpretation, whereby separate parts are brought together to form a ‘whole’ so that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. Translation of studies into one another encourages the researcher to understand and transfer ideas, concepts and metaphors across different studies.
Meta‐interpretation Approach to the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research that seeks to maintain an interpretive epistemology that is congruent with most primary qualitative research (Weed, 2005). Fundamental features of meta‐interpretation comprise:
  • An ideographic (i.e. not predetermined) approach to development of exclusion criteria
  • A focus on meaning in context
  • Interpretations as the raw data for synthesis
  • An iterative approach to the theoretical sampling of studies for synthesis
  • A transparent audit trail as a guarantor of the integrity and trustworthiness of the synthesis
Meta‐narrative review Seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. Meta‐narrative review looks historically at how particular research traditions have unfolded over time and shaped the kind of questions being asked and the methods used to answer them (Wong et al., 2013).
Meta‐Study Also known as: Meta‐Theory ‘Meta study derives questions from each of its three components to which it subjects the dataset and inductively generates a number of theoretical claims in relation to it.’ (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
Meta‐Summary ‘a new and original approach to handling a collection of qualitative studies… the frequency of each finding is determined and the higher the frequency of a particular finding, the greater its validity’ (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
Thematic Synthesis Also known as: Thematic Analysis ‘combines and adapts approaches from both meta‐ethnography and grounded theory. The method was developed out of a need to conduct reviews that addressed questions relating to intervention need, appropriateness and acceptability – as well as those relating to effectiveness – without compromising on key principles developed in systematic reviews’ (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
Mixed methods review family
Mixed Methods Synthesis Also known as: Mixed Methods Review ‘any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
Bayesian Meta‐Analysis Also known as: Bayesian Approach Frequently cited but little used method for synthesising qualitative and quantitative findings. Begins with a prior distribution describing plausible potential values for parameters of interest. This distribution may be informed by previous data or expert beliefs, or it may allow any of a wide range of parameters to be equally true. Observed data is then described in relation to these parameter values. Finally, both parameter and likelihood data are multiplied to create a posterior distribution for each parameter with the mean, median or mode of the posterior distribution being handled as a point estimate and credible set limits being used to describe the surrounding uncertainty (Voils et al., 2009)
EPPI‐Centre Review Also known as: EPPI‐Centre Outcomes plus Views Review Mixed method synthesis that encompasses studies measuring effectiveness (e.g. from randomised controlled trials) and studies investigating people's views and experiences (from qualitative research) (Oliver, 2015). The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre, Institute of Education, University of London sought to combine methods for assessing the likelihood of causal relationships with those that advance understanding of different social perspectives within a third, integrative review
Critical interpretive synthesis ‘Involves an iterative approach to refining the research question and searching and selecting from the literature (using theoretical sampling) and defining and applying codes and categories. It also has a particular approach to appraising quality, using relevance – i.e. likely contribution to theory development – rather than methodological characteristics as a means of determining the ‘quality’ of individual papers’ (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
Narrative Synthesis Also known as: Textual Narrative Synthesis Draws out central theories or causal mechanisms identified in multiple studies and builds an explanation of the body of research by telling the story of the evolution of the field or mapping the domains covered by the literature in an area. Created using the methods of thematic analysis, conceptual mapping, and critical reflection on the synthesis process. (Tricco et al., 2016a) Textual narrative synthesis is an approach which arranges studies into more homogenous groups. (Barnett‐Page & Thomas, 2009)
Realist Synthesis Also known as: Realist Review ‘Answers the question “What works for whom under what circumstances?” rather than “What works?”. Specifically, it seeks to ‘unpack the mechanism’ of how complex programmes work (or why they fail) in particular contexts and settings’ (Booth, 2016)
Rapid Realist Synthesis See Above Under Rapid Reviews
Purpose Specific Reviews

Concept Synthesis

Also known as:

Concept Analysis

Conceptual Analysis

 Synthesis method used to identify concepts, viewpoints or ideas. Focuses on identifying the defining attributes of the concepts and can be used to develop a synthesis model (Tricco et al., 2016a)
Content Analysis Research technique for the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication (i.e. journal articles, books etcetera). Content analysis represents a tool for analysing a sample of research documents in a systematic and rule‐governed way. Broadly, content analysis can be translated into two levels of analysis: (i) analysing the manifest content of texts and documents by statistical methods and (ii) excavating latent content of the text and documents by interpreting the underlying meaning of terms and arguments (Seuring & Gold, 2012)
Expert Opinion/Policy Review ‘To review and synthesize current expert opinion, text or policy on a certain phenomena’ (Munn et al., 2018)

Technology Assessment Review (Health Technology Assessment)

See also: Systematic Review family (Systematic Review of Effectiveness; Comparative Effectiveness Review; Meta‐analysis; Network Meta‐Analysis; Review of economic evaluations)

 Commissioned by decision making bodies (e.g. NICE in the UK), TARs assess the evidence submitted by manufacturers of the clinical efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of their products. Manufacturers’ own systematic review methods will be critiqued and the evidence review group may perform their own searches

Scoping Review

Also known as:

Scoping Study

 ‘Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)

Mapping Review

Also known as:

Evidence Map

Systematic Map

Systematic Mapping Review

 ‘Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)

Methodological Review

Also known as:

Meta‐Method

Methodology Review

 ‘To examine and investigate current research methods and potentially their impact on research quality.’ (Munn et al., 2018)
Systematic Search and Review ‘Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)
Systematized Review ‘Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment’ (Grant & Booth, 2009)

Possible wording (make sure to edit it and make it your own and accurate for what you have done!) for research methods text:

This narrative review follows methodology suggested by Ferrari (2015). Healthcare and social sciences-focused resources searched included the research databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Collaboration's systematic reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Education Source, ERIC, SocINDEX, and PsycINFO, as well as multidisciplinary resources such as Academic Search. US government resources were also consulted. Resources were searched using terms related to XXX and YYY and ZZZ.

The author set inclusion criteria for this narrative review to include empirical research, non-empirical research, editorials, reports, dissertations and theses, and other types of publications relevant to the topic. Exclusion criteria included non-relevant publications, materials not published in the English language, and materials that could not be obtained in full text format. Additional relevant materials were located by consulting references of relevant materials.

Resource-specific subject headings were mined for additional applicable terms. After initial broader searches of the literature, a final ### articles were reviewed at the title and abstract level.  Coupling relevant results located in initial searches with those identified from the narrower search, a total of ## resources were identified to be reviewed in their entirety (I.E., YOU READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE RESOURCE).  Of those, the studies detailed in ## articles met inclusion criteria for this review.  The review was then conducted on this final sample.

Integrative Review Steps Table


Suggested wording (make sure to edit it and make it your own!) for research methods text:

Conduct of this review followed integrative review methodology described by nurse theorists Robin Whittemore and Kathleen Knafl (2005). Whittemore and Knafl’s (2005) methodology presents a five-stage process that includes problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis, and presentation of a final synthesis. Direction was also drawn from the 2020 book A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review (Toronto & Remington). In addition, applicable Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance, extension documents, and reporting procedures were used to increase methodological rigor (Page et al., 2021; Rethlefsen et al., 2021).

Searches were conducted in WHATEVER DATE and only empirical research (if you included only research studies -- like articles that have a "Methods" or "Methodology" section wherein the describe how they conducted the study -- not guidelines, best practice recommendations, theoretical works, or editorial statements) published after #### (WHATEVER DATE YOU CHOOSE AND WHY YOU CHOSE IT) were considered.  As the author’s primary reading language is English, results were also limited to those published in the English language.

Searches were informed by PRISMA-Searching Group (Rethlefsen et al., 2021) guidance, particularly in the conduct and reporting of unified interface searching of multiple databases. Searches of 40 databases spanning economics, education, general interest, government, healthcare, information science, mass media, psychology, sociology, and sports medicine were conducted concurrently through the EBSCOhost interface. Though focus overlaps within several tools, differences in indexing, description, and coverage made searching closely related resources worthwhile. The majority of relevant results, however, came from the following tools: Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, and SPORTDiscus.

The following phrase emerged after an iterative process of keyword and subject heading searches. This phrase yielded results deemed most relevant to the research question.  To enable broader search replication, the phrase lacks platform-specific field identifiers (e.g., markers for heading or title fields) commonly applied in advanced searching.

(nurse* OR “nursing staff” OR “nursing personnel”) AND (study OR cohort* OR random* OR "clinical trial*" OR RCT* OR prospective* OR retrospective* OR interview* OR survey* OR questionnaire* OR measur* OR participant* OR subjects OR ethnograph* OR empiric* OR phenomenolog* OR qualitativ* OR quantitativ* OR data OR dataset*) AND ("older adult*" OR “old age” OR aging OR "senior citizen*" OR “65+” OR elder* OR geriat* OR geront* OR "older people*" OR "older person*" OR "advanced age") 

 

References (only include the methodology documents from which you actually drew)

Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
 

Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. B. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
 

Toronto, C., & Remington, R. (2020). A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review. Springer.


Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

 

How to record numbers of results if you use a flow diagram

The numbers are kind of a moving target depending on when a search is done, what limits may be applied in the background coding in a database or databases, and several other factors. In addition, it's very, very difficult to keep a fully accurate recording of the number of titles you review from more expansive searches of big resources like Google Scholar and just how many titles you review while refining your search. 

A fairly accurate representation of numbers of results reviewed can be found by using the following steps when searching with the All-in-One Search box. Please note that you will want to state clearly in any Methodology write-up that the numbers you record were arrived at after an iterative searching process in which additional titles were likely reviewed.

  1. Once you arrive at what you believe is the search phrase that yields you the most relevant results (Ann can help you develop this phrase!!!!), conduct your search.

  2. Once you have your initial list of results, apply the ENGLISH language limit if you read healthcare literature well only in that language. If you read healthcare literature well in other languages, please include those as well and please note whatever languages (English, etc.) used to limit your search when you write up your Methodology.

  3. Make sure you have applied any publication date limits you plan on using.

  4. Locate the initial total number of results listed on your first page of results and record that number as your initial number of results.

  5. Go to the bottom of your list of results and click the option for going to the furthest page of results you are able (from the first page, that's usually the fifth page if you have more than 200 results). From that furthest page, go to the bottom of your result list once more and click the option for the "Next" page. Then repeat the process of going to the furthest page of results until you reach the end. That last number is usually different from the initial number of results from the first page. The best explanation I have is that the system has continued to automatically deduplicate results while you've progressed through the pages. Record the last amount of results as the number that you state you will review at the article TITLE level. Subtract the last total number of results from the first total number of results and record the difference as the number the system automatically deduplicated.

  6. Next, make sure you have Signed In to EBSCOhost at the top of your results list. You may also want to have a folder set up within your list of EBSCOhost folders for results you want to explore further by reading the abstract. If you choose to use another marking method like exporting interesting titles to citation management software like Zotero or to an Excel spreadsheet, or some other method, that's fine, too. Just make a note of the method you are using and keep a tally of the number of article abstracts you end up reading, and then a tally of the number of articles you end up reading in full text, and then a final tally of the number of articles you determine meet your final inclusion criteria.

  7. Record numbers of results as is appropriate to the type of research you are doing and the dissemination venue (specific journal, presentation, etc.) you choose. There's an MS Word format adaptation of the most current 2020 PRISMA Flow Diagram linked in this guide that you may want to use.

How to record numbers of results if you use a flow diagram

The numbers are kind of a moving target depending on when a search is done, what limits may be applied in the background coding in a database or databases, and several other factors. In addition, it's very, very difficult to keep a fully accurate recording of the number of titles you review from more expansive searches of big resources like Google Scholar and just how many titles you review while refining your search. 

A fairly accurate representation of numbers of results reviewed can be found by using the following steps when searching with the All-in-One Search box. Please note that you will want to state clearly in any Methodology write-up that the numbers you record were arrived at after an iterative searching process in which additional titles were likely reviewed.

Once you arrive on what you believe is the search phrase that yields you the most relevant results (Ann can help you develop this phrase!!!!), conduct your search.

Once you have your initial list of results, apply the ENGLISH language limit if you read healthcare literature well only in that language. If you read healthcare literature well in other languages, please include those as well and please note whatever languages (English, etc.) used to limit your search when you write up your Methodology.

Make sure you have applied any publication date limits you plan on using.

Locate the initial total number of results listed on your first page of results and record that number as your initial number of results.

Go to the bottom of your list of results and click the option for going to the furthest page of results you are able (from the first page, that's usually the fifth page if you have more than 200 results). From that furthest page, go to the bottom of your result list once more and click the option for the "Next" page. Then repeat the process of going to the furthest page of results until you reach the end. That last number is usually different from the initial number of results from the first page. The best explanation I have is that the system has continued to automatically deduplicate results while you've progressed through the pages. Record the last amount of results as the number that you state you will review at the article TITLE level. Subtract the last total number of results from the first total number of results and record the difference as the number the system automatically deduplicated.

Next, make sure you have Signed In to EBSCOhost at the top of your results list. You may also want to have a folder set up within your list of EBSCOhost folders for results you want to explore further by reading the abstract. If you choose to use another marking method like exporting interesting titles to citation management software like Zotero or to an Excel spreadsheet, or some other method, that's fine, too. Just make a note of the method you are using and keep a tally of the number of article abstracts you end up reading, and then a tally of the number of articles you end up reading in full text, and then a final tally of the number of articles you determine meet your final inclusion criteria.

Record the numbers of results as is appropriate to the type of research you are doing and the dissemination venue (specific journal, presentation, etc.) you choose. There's an MS Word format adaptation of the most current 2020 PRISMA Flow Diagram linked in this guide that you may want to use.

Suggested wording (make sure to edit it and make it your own!) for research methods text:

Conduct of this review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Statement Elaboration and Explanation (Page et al., 2021) guidance. Searches were conducted in WHATEVER DATE and only empirical research (if you included only research studies -- like articles that have a "Methods" or "Methodology" section wherein the describe how they conducted the study -- not guidelines, best practice recommendations, theoretical works, or editorial statements) published after #### (WHATEVER DATE YOU CHOOSE AND WHY YOU CHOSE IT) were considered.  As the author’s primary reading language is English, results were also limited to those published in the English language.

Searches were informed by PRISMA-Searching Group (Rethlefsen et al., 2021) guidance, particularly in the conduct and reporting of unified interface searching of multiple databases. Searches of 40 databases spanning economics, education, general interest, government, healthcare, information science, mass media, psychology, sociology, and sports medicine were conducted concurrently through the EBSCOhost interface. Though focus overlaps within several tools, differences in indexing, description, and coverage made searching closely related resources worthwhile. The majority of relevant results, however, came from the following tools: Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, and SPORTDiscus.

The following phrase emerged after an iterative process of keyword and subject heading searches. This phrase yielded results deemed most relevant to the research question.  To enable broader search replication, the phrase lacks platform-specific field identifiers (e.g., markers for heading or title fields) commonly applied in advanced searching.

(nurse* OR “nursing staff” OR “nursing personnel”) AND (study OR cohort* OR random* OR "clinical trial*" OR RCT* OR prospective* OR retrospective* OR interview* OR survey* OR questionnaire* OR measur* OR participant* OR subjects OR ethnograph* OR empiric* OR phenomenolog* OR qualitativ* OR quantitativ* OR data OR dataset*) AND ("older adult*" OR “old age” OR aging OR "senior citizen*" OR “65+” OR elder* OR geriat* OR geront* OR "older people*" OR "older person*" OR "advanced age") 

 

References (only include the methodology documents from which you actually drew)

Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160

Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. B. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z

Eight Steps of Concept Analysis as described by Walker and Avant in Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing

1. Select a concept.
2. Determine the aims or purposes of analysis.
3. Identify all uses of the concept that you can discover.
4. Determine the defining attributes.
5. Identify a model case.
6. Identify borderline, related, contrary, invented, and illegitimate cases.
7. Identify antecedents and consequences.
8. Define empirical referents.

Phrase to use when trying to find resources appropriate to include in an umbrella review (umbrella reviews may include multiple types of information synthesis / many different kinds of reviews of the literature. This phrase should get at all review types outlined by Sutton, Clowes, Preston, and Booth (2019) in their article "Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements," plus one or two more found by the librarian.

your topic AND ("systematic review" OR "systematically review" OR metaanalysis OR "meta-analysis" OR "meta-synthesis" OR metasynthesis OR "meta-summary" OR metasummary OR "meta-ethnography" OR metaethnography OR "meta-interpretation" OR metainterpretation OR "meta-narrative" OR metanarrative OR "meta-study" OR metastudy OR "meta-theory" OR metatheory OR "meta-summary" OR metasummary OR "meta-methodology" OR metamethodology OR "methodology review" OR "systematic search and review" OR "thematic synthesis" OR "thematic analysis" OR “integrative review” OR “integrative literature” OR "integrative synthesis" OR "umbrella review" OR "review of reviews" OR "overview of reviews" OR "mixed studies review" OR "mixed methodology review" OR "mixed methodology synthesis" OR "mixed methodological review" OR "mixed methodological synthesis" OR "mixed methods review" OR "mixed methods synthesis" OR "mapping review" OR "mapping synthesis" OR "rapid review" OR "rapid evidence review" OR "rapid evidence synthesis" OR "rapid realist review" OR "rapid realist synthesis" OR "rapid evidence assessment" OR "experiential review" OR "qualitative review" OR "qualitative evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis" OR "framework synthesis" OR "state of the art review" OR "systematized review" OR "systematised review" OR "systematized synthesis" OR "systematised synthesis" OR “scoping review” OR "scoping study" OR "scoping synthesis" OR “evidence synthesis” OR "synthesis of the evidence" OR "synthesis of evidence" OR "comparative effectiveness review" OR "diagnostic test accuracy review" OR "prognostic review" OR "review of economic evaluations" OR "theory synthesis" OR "theoretical synthesis" OR "synthesis of theories" OR "bayesian approach" OR "critical interpretive review" OR "critical interpretive synthesis" OR "narrative review" OR "narrative synthesis" OR "critical review" OR "concept analysis" OR "conceptual analysis" OR "analysis of concept" OR "content analysis" OR "assessment review")

How to record numbers of results if you use a flow diagram

The numbers are kind of a moving target depending on when a search is done, what limits may be applied in the background coding in a database or databases, and several other factors. In addition, it's very, very difficult to keep a fully accurate recording of the number of titles you review from more expansive searches of big resources like Google Scholar and just how many titles you review while refining your search. 

A fairly accurate representation of numbers of results reviewed can be found by using the following steps when searching with the All-in-One Search box. Please note that you will want to state clearly in any Methodology write-up that the numbers you record were arrived at after an iterative searching process in which additional titles were likely reviewed.

  1. Once you arrive at what you believe is the search phrase that yields you the most relevant results (Ann can help you develop this phrase!!!!), conduct your search.

  2. Once you have your initial list of results, apply the ENGLISH language limit if you read healthcare literature well only in that language. If you read healthcare literature well in other languages, please include those as well and please note whatever languages (English, etc.) used to limit your search when you write up your Methodology.

  3. Make sure you have applied any publication date limits you plan on using.

  4. Locate the initial total number of results listed on your first page of results and record that number as your initial number of results.

  5. Go to the bottom of your list of results and click the option for going to the furthest page of results you are able (from the first page, that's usually the fifth page if you have more than 200 results). From that furthest page, go to the bottom of your result list once more and click the option for the "Next" page. Then repeat the process of going to the furthest page of results until you reach the end. That last number is usually different from the initial number of results from the first page. The best explanation I have is that the system has continued to automatically deduplicate results while you've progressed through the pages. Record the last amount of results as the number that you state you will review at the article TITLE level. Subtract the last total number of results from the first total number of results and record the difference as the number the system automatically deduplicated.

  6. Next, make sure you have Signed In to EBSCOhost at the top of your results list. You may also want to have a folder set up within your list of EBSCOhost folders for results you want to explore further by reading the abstract. If you choose to use another marking method like exporting interesting titles to citation management software like Zotero or to an Excel spreadsheet, or some other method, that's fine, too. Just make a note of the method you are using and keep a tally of the number of article abstracts you end up reading, and then a tally of the number of articles you end up reading in full text, and then a final tally of the number of articles you determine meet your final inclusion criteria.

  7. Record the numbers of results as is appropriate to the type of research you are doing and the dissemination venue (specific journal, presentation, etc.) you choose. There's an MS Word format adaptation of the most current 2020 PRISMA Flow Diagram linked in this guide that you may want to use.

How to record numbers of results if you use a flow diagram

Ann recommends that you not get too hung up on numbers of results.  done, what limits may be applied in the background coding in a database or databases, and several other factors. In addition, it's very, very difficult to keep a fully accurate recording of the number of titles you review from more expansive searches of big resources like Google Scholar and just how many titles you review while refining your search. 

A fairly accurate representation of numbers of results reviewed can be found by using the following steps when searching with the All-in-One Search box. Please note that you will want to state clearly in any Methodology write-up that the numbers you record were arrived at after an iterative searching process in which additional titles were likely reviewed.

  1. Once you arrive at what you believe is the search phrase that yields you the most relevant results (Ann can help you develop this phrase!!!!), conduct your search.

  2. Once you have your initial list of results, apply the ENGLISH language limit if you read healthcare literature well only in that language. If you read healthcare literature well in other languages, please include those as well and please note whatever languages (English, etc.) used to limit your search when you write up your Methodology.

  3. Make sure you have applied any publication date limits you plan on using.

  4. Locate the initial total number of results listed on your first page of results and record that number as your initial number of results.

  5. Go to the bottom of your list of results and click the option for going to the furthest page of results you are able (from the first page, that's usually the fifth page if you have more than 200 results). From that furthest page, go to the bottom of your result list once more and click the option for the "Next" page. Then repeat the process of going to the furthest page of results until you reach the end. That last number is usually different from the initial number of results from the first page. The best explanation I have is that the system has continued to automatically deduplicate results while you've progressed through the pages. Record the last amount of results as the number that you state you will review at the article TITLE level. Subtract the last total number of results from the first total number of results and record the difference as the number the system automatically deduplicated.

  6. Next, make sure you have Signed In to EBSCOhost at the top of your results list. You may also want to have a folder set up within your list of EBSCOhost folders for results you want to explore further by reading the abstract. If you choose to use another marking method like exporting interesting titles to citation management software like Zotero or to an Excel spreadsheet, or some other method, that's fine, too. Just make a note of the method you are using and keep a tally of the number of article abstracts you end up reading, and then a tally of the number of articles you end up reading in full text, and then a final tally of the number of articles you determine meet your final inclusion criteria.

  7. Record the numbers of results as is appropriate to the type of research you are doing and the dissemination venue (specific journal, presentation, etc.) you choose. There's an MS Word format adaptation of the most current 2020 PRISMA Flow Diagram linked in this guide that you may want to use.

Suggested wording (make sure to edit it and make it your own!) for research methods text:

Conduct of this review followed scoping review methodology described by Tricco and colleagues (2018) as part of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Additional applicable PRISMA guidance, extension documents, and reporting procedures were used to increase methodological rigor.

Searches were conducted in WHATEVER DATE and only empirical research (if you included only research studies -- like articles that have a "Methods" or "Methodology" section wherein the describe how they conducted the study -- not guidelines, best practice recommendations, theoretical works, or editorial statements) published after #### (WHATEVER DATE YOU CHOOSE AND WHY YOU CHOSE IT) were considered.  As the author’s primary reading language is English, results were also limited to those published in the English language.

Searches were informed by PRISMA-Searching Group (Rethlefsen et al., 2021) guidance, particularly in the conduct and reporting of unified interface searching of multiple databases. Searches of 40 databases spanning economics, education, general interest, government, healthcare, information science, mass media, psychology, sociology, and sports medicine were conducted concurrently through the EBSCOhost interface. Though focus overlaps within several tools, differences in indexing, description, and coverage made searching closely related resources worthwhile. The majority of relevant results, however, came from the following tools: Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, and SPORTDiscus.

The following phrase emerged after an iterative process of keyword and subject heading searches. This phrase yielded results deemed most relevant to the research question.  To enable broader search replication, the phrase lacks platform-specific field identifiers (e.g., markers for heading or title fields) commonly applied in advanced searching.

(nurse* OR “nursing staff” OR “nursing personnel”) AND (study OR cohort* OR random* OR "clinical trial*" OR RCT* OR prospective* OR retrospective* OR interview* OR survey* OR questionnaire* OR measur* OR participant* OR subjects OR ethnograph* OR empiric* OR phenomenolog* OR qualitativ* OR quantitativ* OR data OR dataset*) AND ("older adult*" OR “old age” OR aging OR "senior citizen*" OR “65+” OR elder* OR geriat* OR geront* OR "older people*" OR "older person*" OR "advanced age") 

 

References (only include the methodology documents from which you actually drew)

Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. B. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z

 

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Resources & tools

  • Look at journals considered "biggies" of your profession, like those from major professional organizations.  "Biggies" should not be the only venues you consider (in my humble opinion).
  • Look in your list of references. Journals that already published on your topic may be receptive to more related to that topic. Pick more than one journal title that looks interesting.
  • If you are looking for venues with an idea for a manuscript, run a basic literature search in the HHS All-in-One multi-database search box and see what journal titles pop up that publish relevant articles. Pick more than one journal title that looks interesting.
  • Google the journal title. Go to the journal's website and find a link labeled "For Authors," "Author Instructions," "Instructions for Authors," or similar.
  • Determine whether your manuscript fits what the journal wants, or if your manuscript could easily be retooled to fit.
  • Look for mentions of fees for submitting or publishing (the librarian avoids journals charging mandatory fees as she does not have tons of extra money AND those journals can sometimes be questionable).

  • ​​Wording about fees is often way down in the text. Do a "FIND" on the author instructions page for: charge, fees, dollars, USD, $.

    • Please note not all journals requiring payment to have articles reviewed or published are predatory, but many are. Look for other warning signs the journal may not be of good quality. OPTIONAL fees covering open access and color printing of images do not count as fees that should make you worry.

    • Try Googling the journal's title and/or the publisher's name followed by the word "predatory" to find whether multiple individuals or entities have identified this journal or its publisher as predatory.

  • ​​If your first journal choice doesn’t work out (e.g., if the journal gives you an opportunity to publish elsewhere – what others might term a "rejection"), other fantastic venues exist for your work. Your literature review provides ideas for additional publication venues. Take reviewer comments and use them to make your manuscript stronger.

All-in-One HHS Article Search

 

The All-in-One HHS Search box searches health, psychology, science, education, and related resources including MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, SPORTDiscus, Academic Search Complete, and more. Use whenever you need to find articles. You will find many e-books, too.  

  1. Search using 2 to 4 important words or concepts about your topic. Focus on a word or phrase related to the primary focus of your research and practice – the person, priority, patient, population, problem, plan, practitioner, or professional.
  2. Go through your first page or two of results and find results that seem like what you need. 
  3. Look for title or subject words in articles you like and use those to further refine the search. If you need more information on specific issues within your wider topic, add in or change search words to reflect what need to find.
  4. If you need to limit your results by peer review status or date, look to the left of your results and locate the REFINE RESULTS column.  Under the column in a section called “Limiters,” click boxes and make date changes as needed.
  5. To get at the full text of things you like, do the following. If you get a "PDF Full Text" image, click that and full text should open. If you only get the purple "Find Full Text" link, click that. A link to get at the electronic full text or, in some cases, information on how to find the print version in the library appears. If such links do not show, click the "No full text available? Try Interlibrary Loan" link that shows after clicking "Find Full Text." If prompted to log into Interlibrary Loan, use your Catamount (student) or WCU (employee) ID and password.
  6. To save citations, click “Add to folder” beside the article titles. Click the top folder icon to email or download selections before exiting. When emailing, specify a citation format (AMA, APA, etc.) by selecting the "Citation Format" option - do not trust 100%!

If you need to write up what resources you are searching, you may want to adapt the following text. Please note that you'll find much more detailed suggested text specific to different review methodologies at https://researchguides.wcu.edu/HHS/publicationandpresentation.

Healthcare and social sciences-focused resources searched included the research databases APA PsycInfo, APA PsycTests, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Collaboration's systematic reviews, Communication & Mass Media Complete, Education Source, Environment Complete, ERIC, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, SocINDEX, and SPORTdiscus as well as multidisciplinary resources such as Academic Search.

  • Search USA.gov for authoritative, up-to-date information on your population and/or problem of interest. Just search using one to four words about your population and/or problem.
    • For instance:
      diabetes
      North Carolina diabetes
  • Use USA.gov to search for statistics (prevalence data, etc.) on a particular population. Just search using one to four words about your population followed by the word statistics.
    • For instance:
      North Carolina diabetes statistics 
  • Find a completed Community Health Assessment for a county of interest. Search USA.gov with the name of your county of interest followed by the state name and the words health assessment.
    • For instance:
      Jackson County North Carolina health assessment

Can't get at the full text of something? 

  • Find the article in the HHS All-in-One Search box. 
  • If you already have the title of an article you want, search using a few words from that title.
  • When you find the title, there will be a "PDF Full Text" or "Find Full Text" link.
  • If you get the "PDF Full Text" link, click that and full text should open right up.  
  • If you only get the purple "Find Full Text" link, click that. A link to the electronic full text or, in some cases, information on finding the print version in the library appears. 
  • If such links do not show, click "No full text available? Try Interlibrary Loan" after clicking "Find Full Text." 
  • If prompted to log into Interlibrary Loan, use your regular Catamount (student) or WCU (employee) ID and password.

HUNTER LIBRARY

176 Central Drive
Cullowhee, NC 28723
Administration: 828-227-7485
Reference: 828-227-7465
Circulation: 828-227-7485

QUICK LINKS

Ask-A-Librarian
Reserve a Study Room
My Account
Library Catalog
Article Databases
Interlibrary Loan

HOURS