Clarifying differences between review designs and methods

<p><b>Abstract</b></p> <p>This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews. Terminology is necessary for planning, describing, appraising, and using reviews, building infra...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gough David, Thomas James, Oliver Sandy
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2012-06-01
Series:Systematic Reviews
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/1/1/28
_version_ 1818961954012659712
author Gough David
Thomas James
Oliver Sandy
author_facet Gough David
Thomas James
Oliver Sandy
author_sort Gough David
collection DOAJ
description <p><b>Abstract</b></p> <p>This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews. Terminology is necessary for planning, describing, appraising, and using reviews, building infrastructure to enable the conduct and use of reviews, and for further developing review methodology. There is insufficient consensus on terminology for a typology of reviews to be produced and any such attempt is likely to be limited by the overlapping nature of the dimensions along which reviews vary. It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation. Three such main dimensions are proposed: (1) aims and approaches (including what the review is aiming to achieve, the theoretical and ideological assumptions, and the use of theory and logics of aggregation and configuration in synthesis); (2) structure and components (including the number and type of mapping and synthesis components and how they relate); and (3) breadth and depth and the extent of ‘work done’ in addressing a research issue (including the breadth of review questions, the detail with which they are addressed, and the amount the review progresses a research agenda). This then provides an overarching strategy to encompass more detailed descriptions of methodology and may lead in time to a more overarching system of terminology for systematic reviews.</p>
first_indexed 2024-12-20T12:21:38Z
format Article
id doaj.art-271605b9942642769babf925e9b36764
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2046-4053
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-20T12:21:38Z
publishDate 2012-06-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Systematic Reviews
spelling doaj.art-271605b9942642769babf925e9b367642022-12-21T19:40:58ZengBMCSystematic Reviews2046-40532012-06-01112810.1186/2046-4053-1-28Clarifying differences between review designs and methodsGough DavidThomas JamesOliver Sandy<p><b>Abstract</b></p> <p>This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews. Terminology is necessary for planning, describing, appraising, and using reviews, building infrastructure to enable the conduct and use of reviews, and for further developing review methodology. There is insufficient consensus on terminology for a typology of reviews to be produced and any such attempt is likely to be limited by the overlapping nature of the dimensions along which reviews vary. It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation. Three such main dimensions are proposed: (1) aims and approaches (including what the review is aiming to achieve, the theoretical and ideological assumptions, and the use of theory and logics of aggregation and configuration in synthesis); (2) structure and components (including the number and type of mapping and synthesis components and how they relate); and (3) breadth and depth and the extent of ‘work done’ in addressing a research issue (including the breadth of review questions, the detail with which they are addressed, and the amount the review progresses a research agenda). This then provides an overarching strategy to encompass more detailed descriptions of methodology and may lead in time to a more overarching system of terminology for systematic reviews.</p>http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/1/1/28Aggregation configurationComplex reviewsMappingMethodologyMixed methods reviewsResearch methodsScoping reviewsSynthesisSystematic reviewsTaxonomy of reviews
spellingShingle Gough David
Thomas James
Oliver Sandy
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
Systematic Reviews
Aggregation configuration
Complex reviews
Mapping
Methodology
Mixed methods reviews
Research methods
Scoping reviews
Synthesis
Systematic reviews
Taxonomy of reviews
title Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
title_full Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
title_fullStr Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
title_full_unstemmed Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
title_short Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
title_sort clarifying differences between review designs and methods
topic Aggregation configuration
Complex reviews
Mapping
Methodology
Mixed methods reviews
Research methods
Scoping reviews
Synthesis
Systematic reviews
Taxonomy of reviews
url http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/1/1/28
work_keys_str_mv AT goughdavid clarifyingdifferencesbetweenreviewdesignsandmethods
AT thomasjames clarifyingdifferencesbetweenreviewdesignsandmethods
AT oliversandy clarifyingdifferencesbetweenreviewdesignsandmethods