The Library
Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation
Tools
Tools
Tools
Melendez-Torres, G. J., O'Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., Brunton, G., Caird, J. and Petticrew , M. (2017) Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation. Research Synthesis Methods, 8 (1). pp. 109-118. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1231
|
PDF
WRAP-interpretive-analysis-suggests-argumentation-Melendez-Torres-2017.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (667Kb) | Preview |
Official URL: http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1231
Abstract
Introduction.
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 to reports of meta-analysis.
Methods.
We used framework synthesis, grounded theory and cross-case analysis methods to analyse 85 systematic reviews addressing intervention effectiveness in workplace health promotion.
Results.
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.
Conclusion.
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 done, not merely as a complement to, or second-best option for, meta-analysis.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > R Medicine (General) | ||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Systematic reviews (Medical research) , Employee health promotion | ||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Research Synthesis Methods | ||||||||
| Publisher: | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. | ||||||||
| ISSN: | 1759-2879 | ||||||||
| Official Date: | 3 March 2017 | ||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||
| Date of first compliant deposit: | 27 October 2016 | ||||||||
| Volume: | 8 | ||||||||
| Number: | 1 | ||||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 109-118 | ||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1002/jrsm.1231 | ||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
