Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

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

[img]
Preview
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

Request Changes to record.

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 Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET)
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > 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:
DateEvent
3 March 2017Published
17 November 2016Available
7 October 2016Accepted
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 View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us