ESMIG's Evidence Synthesis Resources Guide

Here is a listing of references to articles that present and discuss various types of evidence synthesis methods and approaches:

• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• Littell, J. H. (2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1
• Price, C. (2022). Syntheses synthesized: A look back at Grant and Booth’s review typology. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 17(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30093
• Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
• Tricco, A. C., Zarin, W., Ghassemi, M., Nincic, V., Lillie, E., Page, M. J., Shamseer, L., Antony, J., Rios, P., Hwee, J., Veroniki, A. A., Moher, D., Hartling, L., Pham, B., & Straus, S. E. (2018). Same family, different species: Methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 96, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.014

The following comparisons may also be helpful:

Further Reading

• Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
• Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4

A systematic review "seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesi[ze] research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review."

Source: A typology of review by Grant & Booth (2009)

Methodological Guidance

• Aromataris E, Munn Z. (Eds.). (2020). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.  https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
• Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., & Page, M. J. (Eds.). (2022). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.3). https://training.cochrane.org/handbook

Protocol Guidance

• Refer to information on the Protocol Development page

Reporting Standard

• PRISMA 2020 Statement

A scoping review is a "preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. [It] aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)."

Source: A typology of review by Grant & Booth (2009)

Methodological Guidance

• Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
• Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
• Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In Aromataris, E. & Munn, Z. (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
• Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

Protocol Guidance

• Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Khalil, H., Larsen, P., Marnie, C., Pollock, D., Tricco, A. C., & Munn, Z. (2022). Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20(4), 953–968. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00242

Reporting Standard

• PRISMA-ScR - Extension for Scoping Reviews

Further Reading

• Lockwood, C., dos Santos, K. B., & Pap, R. (2019). Practical guidance for knowledge synthesis: Scoping review methods. Asian Nursing Research, 13(5), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2019.11.002

"Integrative reviews are the broadest type of research review methods allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research in order to more fully understand a phenomenon of concern. Integrative reviews may also combine data from the theoretical as well as empirical literature."

Source: The integrative review: Updated methodology by Whittemore and Knafl (2005)

Methodological Guidance

• Hopia, H., Latvala, E., & Liimatainen, L. (2016). Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 30(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12327
• Russell, C. L. (2005). An overview of the integrative research review. Progress in Transplantation, 15(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/152692480501500102
• Tavares de Souza, M., Dias de Silva, M., & de Carvalho, R. (2010). Integrative review: What is it? How to do it? Einstein (São Paulo), 8, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082010RW1134
• Toronto, C. E., & Remington, R. (2020). A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review (1st ed. 2020.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1
• 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

Reporting Standard

• None available at this time.

A living systematic review is a "systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. "

Source: Living systematic reviews by Cochrane Community (n.d.)

Methodological Guidance

• Cochrane Community. (2019). Guidance for the production and publication of Cochrane living systematic reviews. https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Transform/201912_LSR_Revised_Guidance.pdf

Reporting Standard

None available at this time, but the following may be useful:

• Kahale, L. A., Elkhoury, R., Mikati, I. E., Pardo-Hernandez, H., Khamis, A. M., Schünemann, H. J., Haddaway, N. R., & Akl, E. A. (2021). Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: A methodological survey and a proposal. F1000Research, 10(192). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.51723.2

Further Reading

• Elliott, J. H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Mavergames, C., & Gruen, R. L. (2014). Living systematic reviews: An emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLOS Medicine, 11(2), e1001603. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603
• Iannizzi, C., Akl, E. A., Kahale, L. A., Dorando, E., Mosunmola Aminat, A., Barker, J. M., McKenzie, J. E., Haddaway, N. R., Piechotta, V., & Skoetz, N. (2021). Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: A scoping review protocol. F1000Research, 10, 802. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.55108.1
• Living Systematic Review series in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
  • Part 1 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010 
  • Part 2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011 
  • Part 3 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.008 
  • Part 4 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009

"A mapping review aims at categorizing, classifying, characterizing patterns, trends or themes in evidence production or publication"

Source: A typology of review by Grant & Booth (2009)

Methodological Guidance

• Miake-Lye, I.M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P.G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic Reviews, 5(28). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
• Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., & Kuzniarz, L. (2015). Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007

• White, H., Albers, B., Gaarder, M., Kornør, H., Littell, J., Marshall, Z., Mathew, C., Pigott, T., Snilstveit, B., Waddington, H., & Welch, V. (2020). Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(4), e1125. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1125

Reporting Standard

• None available at this time.

Further Reading

• Cooper, I. D. (2016). What is a “mapping study?” Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013

• Khalil, H., & Tricco, A. C. (2022). Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 149, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.012

"Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence in a timely manner-typically for the purpose of informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings."

Source: Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach by Khangura et al. (2012)

Methodological Guidance

• Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook: Steps for conducting a rapid review (Version 1.3). National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/02/800fe34eaedbad09edf80ad5081b9291acf1c0c2.pdf
• Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 5(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
• Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
• Tricco, A. C., Langlois, E. V., Straus, S. E., Research, A. for H. P. and S., & Organization, W. H. (2017). Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: A practical guide. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258698

Reporting Standard

• PRISMA-RR is currently being developed, see Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies (PDF)

Further Reading

• Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
• Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6

"Realist reviews are used to evaluate the mechanisms, contexts and outcomes of middle range theories and social policies"

Source: Meta-narrative and realist reviews: guidance, rules, publication standards and quality appraisal by Gough (2013)

Methodological Guidance

• Booth, A., Briscoe, S., & Wright, J. M. (2020). The “realist search”: A systematic scoping review of current practice and reporting. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1386
• Booth, A., Wright, J., & Briscoe, S. (2018). Scoping and searching to support realist approaches. In Monaghan, M., Dalkin, S., Emmel, N., Greenhalgh, J., & Manzano, A. (Eds.), Doing realist research. SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526451729.n10
• Gough, D. (2013). Meta-narrative and realist reviews: Guidance, rules, publication standards and quality appraisal. BMC Medicine, 11(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-22
• Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review—A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530
• Rycroft-Malone, J., McCormack, B., Hutchinson, A. M., DeCorby, K., Bucknall, T. K., Kent, B., Schultz, A., Snelgrove-Clarke, E., Stetler, C. B., Titler, M., Wallin, L., & Wilson, V. (2012). Realist synthesis: Illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Science, 7(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-33

Reporting Standard

• Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Manzano, A., Greenhalgh, J., Jagosh, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2016). RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Medicine, 14(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1
  • See also, The RAMESES Projects

Further Reading

• Duddy, C., & Roberts, N. (2022). Identifying evidence for five realist reviews in primary health care: A comparison of search methods. Research Synthesis Methods, 13(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1523
• Wong, G. (2019, October 28). The rise and rise of realist reviews? [Blog post]. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/news/views/the-rise-and-rise-of-realist-reviews

An umbrella review "[s]pecifically refers to a review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. [It] focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results"

Source: A typology of review by Grant & Booth (2009)

Methodological Guidance

• Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2020). Chapter 10: Umbrella reviews. In Aromataris, E. & Munn, Z. (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global/
• Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
• Biondi-Zoccai, G. (Ed.). (2016). Umbrella reviews: Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies. Springer. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-25655-9
• Joanna Briggs Institute. (2014). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2014: Methodology for JBI umbrella reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute. https://nursing.lsuhsc.edu/JBI/docs/ReviewersManuals/Umbrella%20Reviews.pdf
• Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., Becker, L. A., Pieper, D., & Hartling, L. (2022). Chapter V: overviews of reviews. In Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.3). http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
• Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15

Reporting Standard

• Gates, M., Gates, A., Pieper, D., Fernandes, R. M., Tricco, A. C., Moher, D., Brennan, S. E., Li, T., Pollock, M., Lunny, C., Sepúlveda, D., McKenzie, J. E., Scott, S. D., Robinson, K. A., Matthias, K., Bougioukas, K. I., Fusar-Poli, P., Whiting, P., Moss, S. J., & Hartling, L. (2022). Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: Development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ, 378, e070849. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070849
• Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., Pieper, D., Tricco, A. C., Gates, M., Gates, A., & Hartling, L. (2019). Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR): A protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1252-9

Further Reading

• Fusar-Poli, P., & Radua, J. (2018). Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 21(3), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014
• Gates, M., Gates, A., Guitard, S., Pollock, M., & Hartling, L. (2020). Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 254. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01509-0