Mapping the landscape of knowledge synthesis.

Knowledge translation is the means by which evidence-based practice is used in health care. Knowledge synthesis, a foundational element of knowledge translation, is a systematic, transparent, reproducible, efficient and scientific approach to identifying and summarising research findings for generalisable and consistent messages. Increasing numbers of knowledge synthesis methods are being applied to various types of research and, although these methods take similar approaches, they vary in rigour, process and resources. This article maps knowledge synthesis methods, by describing the specific stages, approaches and processes, and describes and compares different types of knowledge synthesis to help inform healthcare practitioners and policy makers about various designs. It also recommends a map of knowledge-synthesis designs for international agreement.

[1]  J. Ioannidis Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research , 2005 .

[2]  D. Gough,et al.  Clarifying differences between review designs and methods , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[3]  Donna Ciliska,et al.  Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[4]  Jos Kleijnen,et al.  What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. , 2012, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[5]  Denise Thomson,et al.  A Descriptive Analysis of Overviews of Reviews Published between 2000 and 2011 , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[7]  D. Gould,et al.  What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. , 2009, International journal of nursing studies.

[8]  James Thomas,et al.  Bmc Medical Research Methodology Methods for the Synthesis of Qualitative Research: a Critical Review , 2022 .

[9]  D. Levac,et al.  Scoping studies: advancing the methodology , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[10]  Evidence-based healthcare and qualitative research , 2010 .

[11]  H. Daudt,et al.  Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[12]  David Hailey,et al.  Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[13]  V. Carroll Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice , 2004 .

[14]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Overview of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of reminders in improving healthcare professional behavior , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[15]  B. Arnetz,et al.  Predictors of nurses' perceptions of barriers to research utilization. , 2007, Journal of nursing management.

[16]  Karen Ritchie,et al.  A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews , 2011 .

[17]  P Corabian,et al.  THE USE AND IMPACT OF RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[18]  L. Hedges,et al.  A Brief History of Research Synthesis , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[19]  R. Whittemore,et al.  Combining Evidence in Nursing Research: Methods and Implications , 2005, Nursing research.

[20]  J. Popay,et al.  Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[21]  B. Paterson,et al.  Shifting images of chronic illness. , 1998, Image--the journal of nursing scholarship.

[22]  A. Tricco,et al.  What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[23]  Iain Chalmers,et al.  Trying to do more Good than Harm in Policy and Practice: The Role of Rigorous, Transparent, Up-to-Date Evaluations , 2003 .

[24]  David R. Jones,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods , 2005 .

[25]  R. Whittemore,et al.  The integrative review: updated methodology. , 2005, Journal of advanced nursing.

[26]  H. Arksey,et al.  Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework , 2005 .

[27]  Mary A. Wickline,et al.  Nursing practice, knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers to evidence-based practice at an academic medical center. , 2009, Journal of advanced nursing.

[28]  Maria J Grant,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[29]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[30]  F. Mosteller,et al.  A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[31]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[32]  Mary R. Anderson,et al.  Meta-Analysis for Public Management and Policy , 2013 .