critical review and synthesis of the literature

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

• 6. Synthesize
• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Reading Journal Articles
• Does it Describe a Literature Review?
• 1. Identify the Question
• 2. Review Discipline Styles
• Searching Article Databases
• Finding Full-Text of an Article
• Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• 4. Manage Your References
• 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Synthesis Visualization

Synthesis matrix example.

• 7. Write a Literature Review

• Synthesis Worksheet

About Synthesis

Approaches to Synthesis

You can sort the literature in various ways, for example:

How to Begin?

Read your sources carefully and find the main idea(s) of each source

Look for similarities in your sources – which sources are talking about the same main ideas? (for example, sources that discuss the historical background on your topic)

Use the worksheet (above) or synthesis matrix (below) to get organized

This work can be messy. Don't worry if you have to go through a few iterations of the worksheet or matrix as you work on your lit review!

Four Examples of Student Writing

In the four examples below, only ONE shows a good example of synthesis: the fourth column, or  Student D . For a web accessible version, click the link below the image.

Long description of "Four Examples of Student Writing" for web accessibility

• Download a copy of the "Four Examples of Student Writing" chart

Click on the example to view the pdf.

From Jennifer Lim

• << Previous: 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
• Next: 7. Write a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 11:48 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

1501 Kincaid Street Eugene, OR 97403 P: 541-346-3053 F: 541-346-3485

• Visit us on Facebook
• Visit us on Twitter
• Visit us on Youtube
• Visit us on Instagram
• Report a Concern
• Nondiscrimination and Title IX
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Find People

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

Get Organized

• Lit Review Prep Use this template to help you evaluate your sources, create article summaries for an annotated bibliography, and a synthesis matrix for your lit review outline.

Synthesize your Information

Synthesize: combine separate elements to form a whole.

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix helps you record the main points of each source and document how sources relate to each other.

After summarizing and evaluating your sources, arrange them in a matrix or use a citation manager to help you see how they relate to each other and apply to each of your themes or variables.  

By arranging your sources by theme or variable, you can see how your sources relate to each other, and can start thinking about how you weave them together to create a narrative.

• Step-by-Step Approach
• Example Matrix from NSCU
• Matrix Template
• << Previous: Summarize
• Next: Integrate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 7: Synthesizing Sources

Learning objectives.

At the conclusion of this chapter, you will be able to:

• synthesize key sources connecting them with the research question and topic area.

7.1 Overview of synthesizing

7.1.1 putting the pieces together.

Combining separate elements into a whole is the dictionary definition of synthesis.  It is a way to make connections among and between numerous and varied source materials.  A literature review is not an annotated bibliography, organized by title, author, or date of publication.  Rather, it is grouped by topic to create a whole view of the literature relevant to your research question.

Your synthesis must demonstrate a critical analysis of the papers you collected as well as your ability to integrate the results of your analysis into your own literature review.  Each paper collected should be critically evaluated and weighed for “adequacy, appropriateness, and thoroughness” ( Garrard, 2017 ) before inclusion in your own review.  Papers that do not meet this criteria likely should not be included in your literature review.

Begin the synthesis process by creating a grid, table, or an outline where you will summarize, using common themes you have identified and the sources you have found. The summary grid or outline will help you compare and contrast the themes so you can see the relationships among them as well as areas where you may need to do more searching. Whichever method you choose, this type of organization will help you to both understand the information you find and structure the writing of your review.  Remember, although “the means of summarizing can vary, the key at this point is to make sure you understand what you’ve found and how it relates to your topic and research question” ( Bennard et al., 2014 ).

As you read through the material you gather, look for common themes as they may provide the structure for your literature review.  And, remember, research is an iterative process: it is not unusual to go back and search information sources for more material.

At one extreme, if you are claiming, ‘There are no prior publications on this topic,’ it is more likely that you have not found them yet and may need to broaden your search.  At another extreme, writing a complete literature review can be difficult with a well-trod topic.  Do not cite it all; instead cite what is most relevant.  If that still leaves too much to include, be sure to reference influential sources…as well as high-quality work that clearly connects to the points you make. ( Klingner, Scanlon, & Pressley, 2005 ).

7.2 Creating a summary table

Literature reviews can be organized sequentially or by topic, theme, method, results, theory, or argument.  It’s important to develop categories that are meaningful and relevant to your research question.  Take detailed notes on each article and use a consistent format for capturing all the information each article provides.  These notes and the summary table can be done manually, using note cards.  However, given the amount of information you will be recording, an electronic file created in a word processing or spreadsheet is more manageable. Examples of fields you may want to capture in your notes include:

• Authors’ names
• Article title
• Publication year
• Main purpose of the article
• Methodology or research design
• Participants
• Measurement
• Conclusions

  Other fields that will be useful when you begin to synthesize the sum total of your research:

• Specific details of the article or research that are especially relevant to your study
• Key terms and definitions
• Strengths or weaknesses in research design
• Relationships to other studies
• Possible gaps in the research or literature (for example, many research articles conclude with the statement “more research is needed in this area”)
• Finally, note how closely each article relates to your topic.  You may want to rank these as high, medium, or low relevance.  For papers that you decide not to include, you may want to note your reasoning for exclusion, such as ‘small sample size’, ‘local case study,’ or ‘lacks evidence to support assertion.’

This short video demonstrates how a nursing researcher might create a summary table.

7.2.1 Creating a Summary Table

  Summary tables can be organized by author or by theme, for example:

For a summary table template, see http://blogs.monm.edu/writingatmc/files/2013/04/Synthesis-Matrix-Template.pdf

7.3 Creating a summary outline

An alternate way to organize your articles for synthesis it to create an outline. After you have collected the articles you intend to use (and have put aside the ones you won’t be using), it’s time to identify the conclusions that can be drawn from the articles as a group.

  Based on your review of the collected articles, group them by categories.  You may wish to further organize them by topic and then chronologically or alphabetically by author.  For each topic or subtopic you identified during your critical analysis of the paper, determine what those papers have in common.  Likewise, determine which ones in the group differ.  If there are contradictory findings, you may be able to identify methodological or theoretical differences that could account for the contradiction (for example, differences in population demographics).  Determine what general conclusions you can report about the topic or subtopic as the entire group of studies relate to it.  For example, you may have several studies that agree on outcome, such as ‘hands on learning is best for science in elementary school’ or that ‘continuing education is the best method for updating nursing certification.’ In that case, you may want to organize by methodology used in the studies rather than by outcome.

Organize your outline in a logical order and prepare to write the first draft of your literature review.  That order might be from broad to more specific, or it may be sequential or chronological, going from foundational literature to more current.  Remember, “an effective literature review need not denote the entire historical record, but rather establish the raison d’etre for the current study and in doing so cite that literature distinctly pertinent for theoretical, methodological, or empirical reasons.” ( Milardo, 2015, p. 22 ).

As you organize the summarized documents into a logical structure, you are also appraising and synthesizing complex information from multiple sources.  Your literature review is the result of your research that synthesizes new and old information and creates new knowledge.

7.4 Additional resources:

Literature Reviews: Using a Matrix to Organize Research / Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota

Literature Review: Synthesizing Multiple Sources / Indiana University

Writing a Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix / Florida International University

 Sample Literature Reviews Grid / Complied by Lindsay Roberts

Select three or four articles on a single topic of interest to you. Then enter them into an outline or table in the categories you feel are important to a research question. Try both the grid and the outline if you can to see which suits you better. The attached grid contains the fields suggested in the video .

Literature Review Table  

Test Yourself

• Select two articles from your own summary table or outline and write a paragraph explaining how and why the sources relate to each other and your review of the literature.
• In your literature review, under what topic or subtopic will you place the paragraph you just wrote?

Image attribution

Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students Copyright © by Linda Frederiksen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Research to Action

The Global Guide to Research Impact

Social Media

Framing challenges

Synthetic literature reviews: An introduction

By Steve Wallis and Bernadette Wright 26/05/2020

Whether you are writing a funding proposal or an academic paper, you will most likely be required to start with a literature review of some kind. Despite (or because of) the work involved, a literature review is a great opportunity to showcase your knowledge on a topic. In this post, we’re going to take it one step further. We’re going to tell you a very practical approach to conducting literature reviews that allows you to show that you are advancing scientific knowledge before your project even begins. Also – and this is no small bonus – this approach lets you show how your literature review will lead to a more successful project.

Literature review – start with the basics

A literature review helps you shape effective solutions to the problems you (and your organisation) are facing. A literature review also helps you demonstrate the value of your activities. You can show how much you add to the process before you spend any money collecting new data. Finally, your literature review helps you avoid reinventing the wheel by showing you what relevant research already exists, so that you can target your new research more efficiently and more effectively.

We all want to conduct good research and have a meaningful impact on people’s lives. To do this, a literature review is a critical step. For funders, a literature review is especially important because it shows how much useful knowledge the writer already has.

Past methods of literature reviews tend to be focused on ‘muscle power’, that is spending more time and more effort to review more papers and adhering more closely to accepted standards. Examples of standards for conducting literature reviews include the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions and the guidelines for assessing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews developed by the Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines . Given the untold millions of papers in many disciplines, even a large literature review that adheres to the best guidelines does little to move us toward integrated knowledge in and across disciplines.

In short, we need we need to work smarter, not harder!

Synthetic literature reviews

One approach that can provide more benefit is the synthetic literature review. Synthetic meaning synthesised or integrated, not artificial. Rather than explaining and reflecting on the results of previous studies (as is typically done in literature reviews), a synthetic literature review strives to create a new and more useful theoretical perspective by rigorously integrating the results of previous studies.

Many people find the process of synthesis difficult, elusive, or mysterious. When presenting their views and making recommendations for research, they tend to fall back on intuition (which is neither harder nor smarter).

After defining your research topic (‘poverty’ for example), the next step is to search the literature for existing theories or models of poverty that have been developed from research. You can use Google Scholar or your institutional database, or the assistance of a research librarian. A broad topic such as ‘poverty’, however, will lead you to millions of articles. You’ll narrow that field by focusing more closely on your topic and adding search terms. For example, you might be more interested in poverty among Latino communities in central California. You might also focus your search according to the date of the study (often, but not always, more recent results are preferred), or by geographic location. Continue refining and focusing your search until you have a workable number of papers (depending on your available time and resources). You might also take this time to throw out the papers that seem to be less relevant.

Skim those papers to be sure that they are really relevant to your topic. Once you have chosen a workable number of relevant papers, it is time to start integrating them.

Next, sort them according to the quality of their data.

Next, read the theory presented in each paper and create a diagram of the theory. The theory may be found in a section called ‘theory’ or sometimes in the ‘introduction’. For research papers, that presented theory may have changed during the research process, so you should look for the theory in the ‘findings’, ‘results’, or ‘discussion’ sections.

That diagram should include all relevant concepts from the theory and show the causal connections between the concepts that have been supported by research (some papers will present two theories, one before and one after the research – use the second one – only the hypotheses that have been supported by the research).

For a couple of brief and partial example from a recent interdisciplinary research paper, one theory of poverty might say ‘Having more education will help people to stay out of poverty’, while another might say ‘The more that the economy develops, the less poverty there will be’.

We then use those statements to create a diagram as we have in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Two (simple, partial) theories of poverty. (We like to use dashed lines to indicate ’causes less’, and solid lines to indicate ’causes more’)

When you have completed a diagram for each theory, the next step is to synthesise (integrate) them where the concepts are the same (or substantively similar) between two or more theories. With causal diagrams such as these, the process of synthesis becomes pretty direct. We simply combine the two (or more) theories to create a synthesised theory, such as in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Two theories synthesised where they overlap (in this case theories of poverty)

Much like a road map, a causal diagram of a theory with more concepts and more connecting arrows is more useful for navigation. You can show that your literature review is better than previous reviews by showing that you have taken a number of fragmented theories (as in Figure 1) and synthesised them to create a more coherent theory (as in Figure 2).

To go a step further, you may use Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) to quantify the extent to which your research has improved the structure and potential usefulness of your knowledge through the synthesis. Another source is our new book from Practical Mapping for Applied Research and Program Evaluation (see especially Chapter 5). (For the basics, you can look at Chapter One for free on the publisher’s site by clicking on the ‘Preview’ tab here. )

Once you become comfortable with the process, you will certainly be working ‘smarter’ and showcasing your knowledge to funders!

Contribute Write a blog post, post a job or event, recommend a resource

Partner with Us Are you an institution looking to increase your impact?

Most Recent Posts

• Nothing about us without us
• Youth-focused initiatives: GAGE programme
• Impact to Implementation: measurement, partnerships and storytelling
• Africa Evidence Week 2024
• “Nothing about us without us”: Youth inclusion in research

The latest #R2AImpactPractitioners post features an article by Karen Bell and Mark Reed on the Tree of Participation (ToP) model, a groundbreaking framework designed to enhance inclusive decision-making. By identifying 12 key factors and 7 contextual elements, ToP empowers marginalized groups and ensures processes that are inclusive, accountable, and balanced in power dynamics. The model uses a tree metaphor to illustrate its phases: roots (pre-process), branches (process), and leaves (post-process), all interconnected within their context. Discover more by following the #R2Aimpactpractitioners link in our linktree 👉🔗

Do you use AI in your work? AI is increasingly present in all our lives, but how can we use it effectively to enhance research practice? Earlier this year Inés Arangüena explored this question in a two part series. Follow the link in our bio to read more. https://ow.ly/IV0R50SH5tI #AI

🌟 This week, #R2ARecommends this webinar on demystifying evaluation practice, produced by the Global Evaluation Initiative. 🌟 🔗Follow the #R2ARecommends link in our linktree to find out more! #Evaluation #Webinar #InclusiveCommunication #GEI #GlobalEval

Research To Action (R2A) is a learning platform for anyone interested in maximising the impact of research and capturing evidence of impact.

The site publishes practical resources on a range of topics including research uptake, communications, policy influence and monitoring and evaluation. It captures the experiences of practitioners and researchers working on these topics and facilitates conversations between this global community through a range of social media platforms.

R2A is produced by a small editorial team, led by CommsConsult . We welcome suggestions for and contributions to the site.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our contributors

Browse all authors

Friends and partners

• Global Development Network (GDN)
• Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
• International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
• On Think Tanks
• Politics & Ideas
• Research for Development (R4D)
• Research Impact

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The power of a belief system: a systematic qualitative synthesis of spiritual care for patients with brain tumors.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. literature search and methodology, 2.2. screening and data extraction, 2.3. data synthesis and analysis, search results, 4. discussion, 4.1. patient, 4.2. family or care givers, 4.3. provider, 4.4. future directions and limitations, 5. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Ostrom, Q.T.; Cioffi, G.; Gittleman, H.; Patil, N.; Waite, K.; Kruchko, C.; Barnholtz-Sloan, J.S. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2012–2016. Neuro. Oncol. 2019 , 21 , v1–v100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rouse, C.; Gittleman, H.; Ostrom, Q.T.; Kruchko, C.; Barnholtz-Sloan, J.S. Years of Potential Life Lost for Brain and CNS Tumors Relative to Other Cancers in Adults in the United States, 2010. Neuro. Oncol. 2016 , 18 , 70–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Butowski, N.A. Epidemiology and Diagnosis of Brain Tumors. Continuum 2015 , 21 , 301–313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ali, F.S.; Hussain, M.R.; Gutiérrez, C.; Demireva, P.; Ballester, L.Y.; Zhu, J.-J.; Blanco, A.; Esquenazi, Y. Cognitive Disability in Adult Patients with Brain Tumors. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2018 , 65 , 33–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koekkoek, J.A.F.; van der Meer, P.B.; Pace, A.; Hertler, C.; Harrison, R.; Leeper, H.E.; Forst, D.A.; Jalali, R.; Oliver, K.; Philip, J.; et al. Palliative Care and End-of-Life Care in Adults with Malignant Brain Tumors. Neuro. Oncol. 2023 , 25 , 447–456. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• de Brito Sena, M.A.; Damiano, R.F.; Lucchetti, G.; Peres, M.F.P. Defining Spirituality in Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework. Front. Psychol. 2021 , 12 , 756080. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brady, M.J.; Peterman, A.H.; Fitchett, G.; Mo, M.; Cella, D. A Case for Including Spirituality in Quality of Life Measurement in Oncology. Psychooncology 1999 , 8 , 417–428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ownsworth, T.; Nash, K. Existential Well-Being and Meaning Making in the Context of Primary Brain Tumor: Conceptualization and Implications for Intervention. Front. Oncol. 2015 , 5 , 96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anderson-Shaw, L.; Baslet, G.; Villano, J.L. Brain Neoplasm and the Potential Impact on Self-Identity. AJOB Neurosci. 2010 , 1 , 3–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pertz, M.; Schlegel, U.; Thoma, P. Sociocognitive Functioning and Psychosocial Burden in Patients with Brain Tumors. Cancers 2022 , 14 , 767. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pelletier, G.; Verhoef, M.J.; Khatri, N.; Hagen, N. Quality of Life in Brain Tumor Patients: The Relative Contributions of Depression, Fatigue, Emotional Distress, and Existential Issues. J. Neurooncol. 2002 , 57 , 41–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021 , 10 , 89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strang, S.; Strang, P. Spiritual Thoughts, Coping and ‘Sense of Coherence’ in Brain Tumour Patients and Their Spouses. Palliat. Med. 2001 , 15 , 127–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Brody, H.; Cardinal, J.L.; Foglio, J.P. Addressing Spiritual Concerns in Family Medicine: A Team Approach. J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 2004 , 17 , 201–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lipsman, N.; Skanda, A.; Kimmelman, J.; Bernstein, M. The Attitudes of Brain Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers towards Death and Dying: A Qualitative Study. BMC Palliat. Care 2007 , 6 , 7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nixon, A.; Narayanasamy, A. The Spiritual Needs of Neuro-oncology Patients from Patients’ Perspective. J. Clin. Nurs. 2010 , 19 , 2259–2370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zelcer, S.; Cataudella, D.; Cairney, A.E.L.; Bannister, S.L. Palliative Care of Children with Brain Tumors. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2010 , 164 , 225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cavers, D.; Hacking, B.; Erridge, S.E.; Kendall, M.; Morris, P.G.; Murray, S.A. Social, Psychological and Existential Well-Being in Patients with Glioma and Their Caregivers: A Qualitative Study. CMAJ 2012 , 184 , E373–E382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Newberry, A.G.; Choi, C.-W.J.; Donovan, H.S.; Schulz, R.; Bender, C.; Given, B.; Sherwood, P. Exploring Spirituality in Family Caregivers of Patients with Primary Malignant Brain Tumors across the Disease Trajectory. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2013 , 40 , E119–E125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nixon, A.V.; Narayanasamy, A.; Penny, V. An Investigation into the Spiritual Needs of Neuro-Oncology Patients from a Nurse Perspective. BMC Nurs. 2013 , 12 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sizoo, E.M.; Dirven, L.; Reijneveld, J.C.; Postma, T.J.; Heimans, J.J.; Deliens, L.; Pasman, H.R.W.; Taphoorn, M.J.B. Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in High-Grade Glioma Patients at the End of Life Using a Proxy-Reported Retrospective Questionnaire. J. Neurooncol. 2014 , 116 , 283–290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Piderman, K.M.; Breitkopf, C.R.; Jenkins, S.M.; Lovejoy, L.A.; Dulohery, Y.M.; Marek, D.V.; Durland, H.L.; Head, D.L.; Swanson, S.W.; Hogg, J.T.; et al. The Feasibility and Educational Value of Hear My Voice, a Chaplain-Led Spiritual Life Review Process for Patients with Brain Cancers and Progressive Neurologic Conditions. J. Cancer Educ. 2015 , 30 , 209–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Strang, S.; Strang, P.; Ternestedt, B.-M. Existential Support in Brain Tumour Patients and Their Spouses. Support. Care Cancer 2001 , 9 , 625–633. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Piderman, K.M.; Radecki Breitkopf, C.; Jenkins, S.M.; Lapid, M.I.; Kwete, G.M.; Sytsma, T.T.; Lovejoy, L.A.; Yoder, T.J.; Jatoi, A. The Impact of a Spiritual Legacy Intervention in Patients with Brain Cancers and Other Neurologic Illnesses and Their Support Persons. Psychooncology 2017 , 26 , 346–353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Piderman, K.M.; Egginton, J.S.; Ingram, C.; Dose, A.M.; Yoder, T.J.; Lovejoy, L.A.; Swanson, S.W.; Hogg, J.T.; Lapid, M.I.; Jatoi, A.; et al. I’m Still Me: Inspiration and Instruction from Individuals with Brain Cancer. J. Health Care Chaplain. 2017 , 23 , 15–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cutillo, A.; Zimmerman, K.; Davies, S.; Madan-Swain, A.; Landier, W.; Arynchyna, A.; Rocque, B.G. Coping Strategies Used by Caregivers of Children with Newly Diagnosed Brain Tumors. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 2018 , 23 , 30–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Giovagnoli, A.R.; Paterlini, C.; Meneses, R.F.; Martins da Silva, A. Spirituality and Quality of Life in Epilepsy and Other Chronic Neurological Disorders. Epilepsy Behav. 2019 , 93 , 94–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Randazzo, D.M.; McSherry, F.; Herndon, J.E.; Affronti, M.L.; Lipp, E.S.; Flahiff, C.; Miller, E.; Woodring, S.; Boulton, S.; Desjardins, A.; et al. Complementary and Integrative Health Interventions and Their Association with Health-Related Quality of Life in the Primary Brain Tumor Population. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2019 , 36 , 43–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hyer, J.M.; Paredes, A.Z.; Kelley, E.P.; Tsilimigras, D.; Meyer, B.; Newberry, H.; Pawlik, T.M. Characterizing Pastoral Care Utilization by Cancer Patients. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Care 2021 , 38 , 758–765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Randazzo, D.M.; McSherry, F.; Herndon, J.E., II; Affronti, M.L.; Lipp, E.S.; Miller, E.S.; Woodring, S.; Healy, P.; Jackman, J.; Crouch, B.; et al. Spiritual Well-Being and Its Association with Health-Related Quality of Life in Primary Brain Tumor Patients. Neurooncol. Pract. 2021 , 8 , 299–309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baksi, A.; Arda Sürücü, H.; Genç, H. Psychological Hardiness and Spirituality in Patients with Primary Brain Tumors: A Comparative Study. J. Relig. Health 2021 , 60 , 2799–2809. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sprik, P.J.; Tata, B.; Kelly, B.; Fitchett, G. Religious/Spiritual Concerns of Patients with Brain Cancer and Their Caregivers. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2021 , 10 , 964–969. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Applebaum, A.J.; Baser, R.E.; Roberts, K.E.; Lynch, K.; Gebert, R.; Breitbart, W.S.; Diamond, E.L. Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers: A Pilot Trial among Caregivers of Patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme. Transl. Behav. Med. 2022 , 12 , 841–852. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maugans, T.A. The SPIRITual History. Arch. Fam. Med. 1996 , 5 , 11–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Puchalski, C.; Ferrell, B.; Virani, R.; Otis-Green, S.; Baird, P.; Bull, J.; Chochinov, H.; Handzo, G.; Nelson-Becker, H.; Prince-Paul, M.; et al. Improving the Quality of Spiritual Care as a Dimension of Palliative Care: The Report of the Consensus Conference. J. Palliat. Med. 2009 , 12 , 885–904. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nolan, S.; Saltmarch, P.; Leget, C. Spiritual Care in Palliative Care: Working towards an EAPC Task Force. Eur. J. Pal. Care 2011 , 18 , 86–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Puchalski, C.M.; Vitillo, R.; Hull, S.K.; Reller, N. Improving the Spiritual Dimension of Whole Person Care: Reaching National and International Consensus. J. Palliat. Med. 2014 , 17 , 642–656. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gholamhosseini, M.; Dehghan, M.; Azzizadeh Forouzi, M.; Mangolian Shahrbabaki, P.; Roy, C. Effectiveness of Spiritual Counseling on the Enhancement of Hope in Iranian Muslim Patients with Myocardial Infarction: A Two-Month Follow-Up. J. Relig. Health 2022 , 61 , 3898–3908. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kobasa, S.C. Stressful Life Events, Personality, and Health: An Inquiry into Hardiness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1979 , 37 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Korman, M.B.; Ellis, J.; Moore, J.; Bilodeau, D.; Dulmage, S.; Fitch, M.; Mueller, C.; Sahgal, A.; Moroney, C. Dignity Therapy for Patients with Brain Tumours: Qualitative Reports from Patients, Caregivers and Practitioners. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2021 , 10 , 838–845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Mehta, N.H.; Prajapati, M.; Aeleti, R.; Kinariwala, K.; Ohri, K.; McCabe, S.; Buller, Z.; Leskinen, S.; Nawabi, N.L.; Bhatt, V.; et al. The Power of a Belief System: A Systematic Qualitative Synthesis of Spiritual Care for Patients with Brain Tumors. J. Clin. Med. 2024 , 13 , 4871. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164871

Mehta NH, Prajapati M, Aeleti R, Kinariwala K, Ohri K, McCabe S, Buller Z, Leskinen S, Nawabi NL, Bhatt V, et al. The Power of a Belief System: A Systematic Qualitative Synthesis of Spiritual Care for Patients with Brain Tumors. Journal of Clinical Medicine . 2024; 13(16):4871. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164871

Mehta, Neel H., Megh Prajapati, Rishi Aeleti, Kush Kinariwala, Karina Ohri, Sean McCabe, Zachary Buller, Sandra Leskinen, Noah L. Nawabi, Vatsal Bhatt, and et al. 2024. "The Power of a Belief System: A Systematic Qualitative Synthesis of Spiritual Care for Patients with Brain Tumors" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 16: 4871. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164871

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review

Elaine barnett-page.

1 Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating (EPPI-) Centre, Social Science Research Unit, 18 Woburn Square, London WC1H 0NS, UK

James Thomas

Associated data.

In recent years, a growing number of methods for synthesising qualitative research have emerged, particularly in relation to health-related research. There is a need for both researchers and commissioners to be able to distinguish between these methods and to select which method is the most appropriate to their situation.

A number of methodological and conceptual links between these methods were identified and explored, while contrasting epistemological positions explained differences in approaches to issues such as quality assessment and extent of iteration. Methods broadly fall into 'realist' or 'idealist' epistemologies, which partly accounts for these differences.

Methods for qualitative synthesis vary across a range of dimensions. Commissioners of qualitative syntheses might wish to consider the kind of product they want and select their method – or type of method – accordingly.

The range of different methods for synthesising qualitative research has been growing over recent years [ 1 , 2 ], alongside an increasing interest in qualitative synthesis to inform health-related policy and practice [ 3 ]. While the terms 'meta-analysis' (a statistical method to combine the results of primary studies), or sometimes 'narrative synthesis', are frequently used to describe how quantitative research is synthesised, far more terms are used to describe the synthesis of qualitative research. This profusion of terms can mask some of the basic similarities in approach that the different methods share, and also lead to some confusion regarding which method is most appropriate in a given situation. This paper does not argue that the various nomenclatures are unnecessary, but rather seeks to draw together and review the full range of methods of synthesis available to assist future reviewers in selecting a method that is fit for their purpose. It also represents an attempt to guide the reader through some of the varied terminology to spring up around qualitative synthesis. Other helpful reviews of synthesis methods have been undertaken in recent years with slightly different foci to this paper. Two recent studies have focused on describing and critiquing methods for the integration of qualitative research with quantitative [ 4 , 5 ] rather than exclusively examining the detail and rationale of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research. Two other significant pieces of work give practical advice for conducting the synthesis of qualitative research, but do not discuss the full range of methods available [ 6 , 7 ]. We begin our Discussion by outlining each method of synthesis in turn, before comparing and contrasting characteristics of these different methods across a range of dimensions. Readers who are more familiar with the synthesis methods described here may prefer to turn straight to the 'dimensions of difference' analysis in the second part of the Discussion.

Overview of synthesis methods

Meta-ethnography.

In their seminal work of 1988, Noblit and Hare proposed meta-ethnography as an alternative to meta-analysis [ 8 ]. They cited Strike and Posner's [ 9 ] definition of synthesis as an activity in which separate parts are brought together to form a 'whole'; this construction of the whole is essentially characterised by some degree of innovation, so that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. They also borrowed from Turner's theory of social explanation [ 10 ], a key tenet of which was building 'comparative understanding' [[ 8 ], p22] rather than aggregating data.

To Noblit and Hare, synthesis provided an answer to the question of 'how to "put together" written interpretive accounts' [[ 8 ], p7], where mere integration would not be appropriate. Noblit and Hare's early work synthesised research from the field of education.

Three different methods of synthesis are used in meta-ethnography. One involves the 'translation' of concepts from individual studies into one another, thereby evolving overarching concepts or metaphors. Noblit and Hare called this process reciprocal translational analysis (RTA). Refutational synthesis involves exploring and explaining contradictions between individual studies. Lines-of-argument (LOA) synthesis involves building up a picture of the whole (i.e. culture, organisation etc) from studies of its parts. The authors conceptualised this latter approach as a type of grounded theorising.

Britten et al [ 11 ] and Campbell et al [ 12 ] have both conducted evaluations of meta-ethnography and claim to have succeeded, by using this method, in producing theories with greater explanatory power than could be achieved in a narrative literature review. While both these evaluations used small numbers of studies, more recently Pound et al [ 13 ] conducted both an RTA and an LOA synthesis using a much larger number of studies (37) on resisting medicines. These studies demonstrate that meta-ethnography has evolved since Noblit and Hare first introduced it. Campbell et al claim to have applied the method successfully to non-ethnographical studies. Based on their reading of Schutz [ 14 ], Britten et al have developed both second and third order constructs in their synthesis (Noblit and Hare briefly allude to the possibility of a 'second level of synthesis' [[ 8 ], p28] but do not demonstrate or further develop the idea).

In a more recent development, Sandelowski & Barroso [ 15 ] write of adapting RTA by using it to ' integrate findings interpretively, as opposed to comparing them interpretively' (p204). The former would involve looking to see whether the same concept, theory etc exists in different studies; the latter would involve the construction of a bigger picture or theory (i.e. LOA synthesis). They also talk about comparing or integrating imported concepts (e.g. from other disciplines) as well as those evolved 'in vivo'.

Grounded theory

Kearney [ 16 ], Eaves [ 17 ] and Finfgeld [ 18 ] have all adapted grounded theory to formulate a method of synthesis. Key methods and assumptions of grounded theory, as originally formulated and subsequently refined by Glaser and Strauss [ 19 ] and Strauss and Corbin [ 20 , 21 ], include: simultaneous phases of data collection and analysis; an inductive approach to analysis, allowing the theory to emerge from the data; the use of the constant comparison method; the use of theoretical sampling to reach theoretical saturation; and the generation of new theory. Eaves cited grounded theorists Charmaz [ 22 ] and Chesler [ 23 ], as well as Strauss and Corbin [ 20 ], as informing her approach to synthesis.

Glaser and Strauss [ 19 ] foresaw a time when a substantive body of grounded research should be pushed towards a higher, more abstract level. As a piece of methodological work, Eaves undertook her own synthesis of the synthesis methods used by these authors to produce her own clear and explicit guide to synthesis in grounded formal theory. Kearney stated that 'grounded formal theory', as she termed this method of synthesis, 'is suited to study of phenomena involving processes of contextualized understanding and action' [[ 24 ], p180] and, as such, is particularly applicable to nurses' research interests.

As Kearney suggested, the examples examined here were largely dominated by research in nursing. Eaves synthesised studies on care-giving in rural African-American families for elderly stroke survivors; Finfgeld on courage among individuals with long-term health problems; Kearney on women's experiences of domestic violence.

Kearney explicitly chose 'grounded formal theory' because it matches 'like' with 'like': that is, it applies the same methods that have been used to generate the original grounded theories included in the synthesis – produced by constant comparison and theoretical sampling – to generate a higher-level grounded theory. The wish to match 'like' with 'like' is also implicit in Eaves' paper. This distinguishes grounded formal theory from more recent applications of meta-ethnography, which have sought to include qualitative research using diverse methodological approaches [ 12 ].

Thematic Synthesis

Thomas and Harden [ 25 ] have developed an approach to synthesis which they term 'thematic synthesis'. This combines and adapts approaches from both meta-ethnography and grounded theory. The method was developed out of a need to conduct reviews that addressed questions relating to intervention need, appropriateness and acceptability – as well as those relating to effectiveness – without compromising on key principles developed in systematic reviews. They applied thematic synthesis in a review of the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating amongst children.

Free codes of findings are organised into 'descriptive' themes, which are then further interpreted to yield 'analytical' themes. This approach shares characteristics with later adaptations of meta-ethnography, in that the analytical themes are comparable to 'third order interpretations' and that the development of descriptive and analytical themes using coding invoke reciprocal 'translation'. It also shares much with grounded theory, in that the approach is inductive and themes are developed using a 'constant comparison' method. A novel aspect of their approach is the use of computer software to code the results of included studies line-by-line, thus borrowing another technique from methods usually used to analyse primary research.

Textual Narrative Synthesis

Textual narrative synthesis is an approach which arranges studies into more homogenous groups. Lucas et al [ 26 ] comment that it has proved useful in synthesising evidence of different types (qualitative, quantitative, economic etc). Typically, study characteristics, context, quality and findings are reported on according to a standard format and similarities and differences are compared across studies. Structured summaries may also be developed, elaborating on and putting into context the extracted data [ 27 ].

Lucas et al [ 26 ] compared thematic synthesis with textual narrative synthesis. They found that 'thematic synthesis holds most potential for hypothesis generation' whereas textual narrative synthesis is more likely to make transparent heterogeneity between studies (as does meta-ethnography, with refutational synthesis) and issues of quality appraisal. This is possibly because textual narrative synthesis makes clearer the context and characteristics of each study, while the thematic approach organises data according to themes. However, Lucas et al found that textual narrative synthesis is 'less good at identifying commonality' (p2); the authors do not make explicit why this should be, although it may be that organising according to themes, as the thematic approach does, is comparatively more successful in revealing commonality.

Paterson et al [ 28 ] have evolved a multi-faceted approach to synthesis, which they call 'meta-study'. The sociologist Zhao [ 29 ], drawing on Ritzer's work [ 30 ], outlined three components of analysis, which they proposed should be undertaken prior to synthesis. These are meta-data-analysis (the analysis of findings), meta-method (the analysis of methods) and meta-theory (the analysis of theory). Collectively, these three elements of analysis, culminating in synthesis, make up the practice of 'meta-study'. Paterson et al pointed out that the different components of analysis may be conducted concurrently.

Paterson et al argued that primary research is a construction; secondary research is therefore a construction of a construction. There is need for an approach that recognises this, and that also recognises research to be a product of its social, historical and ideological context. Such an approach would be useful in accounting for differences in research findings. For Paterson et al, there is no such thing as 'absolute truth'.

Meta-study was developed to study the experiences of adults living with a chronic illness. Meta-data-analysis was conceived of by Paterson et al in similar terms to Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnography (see above), in that it is essentially interpretive and seeks to reveal similarities and discrepancies among accounts of a particular phenomenon. Meta-method involves the examination of the methodologies of the individual studies under review. Part of the process of meta-method is to consider different aspects of methodology such as sampling, data collection, research design etc, similar to procedures others have called 'critical appraisal' (CASP [ 31 ]). However, Paterson et al take their critique to a deeper level by establishing the underlying assumptions of the methodologies used and the relationship between research outcomes and methods used. Meta-theory involves scrutiny of the philosophical and theoretical assumptions of the included research papers; this includes looking at the wider context in which new theory is generated. Paterson et al described meta-synthesis as a process which creates a new interpretation which accounts for the results of all three elements of analysis. The process of synthesis is iterative and reflexive and the authors were unwilling to oversimplify the process by 'codifying' procedures for bringing all three components of analysis together.

Meta-narrative

Greenhalgh et al [ 32 ]'s meta-narrative approach to synthesis arose out of the need to synthesise evidence to inform complex policy-making questions and was assisted by the formation of a multi-disciplinary team. Their approach to review was informed by Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [ 33 ], in which he proposed that knowledge is produced within particular paradigms which have their own assumptions about theory, about what is a legitimate object of study, about what are legitimate research questions and about what constitutes a finding. Paradigms also tend to develop through time according to a particular set of stages, central to which is the stage of 'normal science', in which the particular standards of the paradigm are largely unchallenged and seen to be self-evident. As Greenhalgh et al pointed out, Kuhn saw paradigms as largely incommensurable: 'that is, an empirical discovery made using one set of concepts, theories, methods and instruments cannot be satisfactorily explained through a different paradigmatic lens' [[ 32 ], p419].

Greenhalgh et al synthesised research from a wide range of disciplines; their research question related to the diffusion of innovations in health service delivery and organisation. They thus identified a need to synthesise findings from research which contains many different theories arising from many different disciplines and study designs.

Based on Kuhn's work, Greenhalgh et al proposed that, across different paradigms, there were multiple – and potentially mutually contradictory – ways of understanding the concept at the heart of their review, namely the diffusion of innovation. Bearing this in mind, the reviewers deliberately chose to select key papers from a number of different research 'paradigms' or 'traditions', both within and beyond healthcare, guided by their multidisciplinary research team. They took as their unit of analysis the 'unfolding "storyline" of a research tradition over time' [[ 32 ], p417) and sought to understand diffusion of innovation as it was conceptualised in each of these traditions. Key features of each tradition were mapped: historical roots, scope, theoretical basis; research questions asked and methods/instruments used; main empirical findings; historical development of the body of knowledge (how have earlier findings led to later findings); and strengths and limitations of the tradition. The results of this exercise led to maps of 13 'meta-narratives' in total, from which seven key dimensions, or themes, were identified and distilled for the synthesis phase of the review.

Critical Interpretive Synthesis

Dixon-Woods et al [ 34 ] developed their own approach to synthesising multi-disciplinary and multi-method evidence, termed 'critical interpretive synthesis', while researching access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. Critical interpretive synthesis is an adaptation of meta-ethnography, as well as borrowing techniques from grounded theory. The authors stated that they needed to adapt traditional meta-ethnographic methods for synthesis, since these had never been applied to quantitative as well as qualitative data, nor had they been applied to a substantial body of data (in this case, 119 papers).

Dixon-Woods et al presented critical interpretive synthesis as an approach to the whole process of review, rather than to just the synthesis component. It involves an iterative approach to refining the research question and searching and selecting from the literature (using theoretical sampling) and defining and applying codes and categories. It also has a particular approach to appraising quality, using relevance – i.e. likely contribution to theory development – rather than methodological characteristics as a means of determining the 'quality' of individual papers [ 35 ]. The authors also stress, as a defining characteristic, critical interpretive synthesis's critical approach to the literature in terms of deconstructing research traditions or theoretical assumptions as a means of contextualising findings.

Dixon-Woods et al rejected reciprocal translational analysis (RTA) as this produced 'only a summary in terms that have already been used in the literature' [[ 34 ], p5], which was seen as less helpful when dealing with a large and diverse body of literature. Instead, Dixon-Woods et al adopted a lines-of-argument (LOA) synthesis, in which – rejecting the difference between first, second and third order constructs – they instead developed 'synthetic constructs' which were then linked with constructs arising directly from the literature.

The influence of grounded theory can be seen in particular in critical interpretive synthesis's inductive approach to formulating the review question and to developing categories and concepts, rejecting a 'stage' approach to systematic reviewing, and in selecting papers using theoretical sampling. Dixon-Woods et al also claim that critical interpretive synthesis is distinct in its 'explicit orientation towards theory generation' [[ 34 ], p9].

Ecological Triangulation

Jim Banning is the author of 'ecological triangulation' or 'ecological sentence synthesis', applying this method to the evidence for what works for youth with disabilities. He borrows from Webb et al [ 36 ] and Denzin [ 37 ] the concept of triangulation, in which phenomena are studied from a variety of vantage points. His rationale is that building an 'evidence base' of effectiveness requires the synthesis of cumulative, multi-faceted evidence in order to find out 'what intervention works for what kind of outcomes for what kind of persons under what kind of conditions' [[ 38 ], p1].

Ecological triangulation unpicks the mutually interdependent relationships between behaviour, persons and environments. The method requires that, for data extraction and synthesis, 'ecological sentences' are formulated following the pattern: 'With this intervention, these outcomes occur with these population foci and within these grades (ages), with these genders ... and these ethnicities in these settings' [[ 39 ], p1].

Framework Synthesis

Brunton et al [ 40 ] and Oliver et al [ 41 ] have applied a 'framework synthesis' approach in their reviews. Framework synthesis is based on framework analysis, which was outlined by Pope, Ziebland and Mays [ 42 ], and draws upon the work of Ritchie and Spencer [ 43 ] and Miles and Huberman [ 44 ]. Its rationale is that qualitative research produces large amounts of textual data in the form of transcripts, observational fieldnotes etc. The sheer wealth of information poses a challenge for rigorous analysis. Framework synthesis offers a highly structured approach to organising and analysing data (e.g. indexing using numerical codes, rearranging data into charts etc).

Brunton et al applied the approach to a review of children's, young people's and parents' views of walking and cycling; Oliver et al to an analysis of public involvement in health services research. Framework synthesis is distinct from the other methods outlined here in that it utilises an a priori 'framework' – informed by background material and team discussions – to extract and synthesise findings. As such, it is largely a deductive approach although, in addition to topics identified by the framework, new topics may be developed and incorporated as they emerge from the data. The synthetic product can be expressed in the form of a chart for each key dimension identified, which may be used to map the nature and range of the concept under study and find associations between themes and exceptions to these [ 40 ].

'Fledgling' approaches

There are three other approaches to synthesis which have not yet been widely used. One is an approach using content analysis [ 45 , 46 ] in which text is condensed into fewer content-related categories. Another is 'meta-interpretation' [ 47 ], featuring the following: an ideographic rather than pre-determined approach to the development of exclusion criteria; a focus on meaning in context; interpretations as raw data for synthesis (although this feature doesn't distinguish it from other synthesis methods); an iterative approach to the theoretical sampling of studies for synthesis; and a transparent audit trail demonstrating the trustworthiness of the synthesis.

In addition to the synthesis methods discussed above, Sandelowski and Barroso propose a method they call 'qualitative metasummary' [ 15 ]. It is mentioned here as a new and original approach to handling a collection of qualitative studies but is qualitatively different to the other methods described here since it is aggregative; that is, findings are accumulated and summarised rather than 'transformed'. Metasummary is a way of producing a 'map' of the contents of qualitative studies and – according to Sandelowski and Barroso – 'reflect [s] a quantitative logic' [[ 15 ], p151]. The frequency of each finding is determined and the higher the frequency of a particular finding, the greater its validity. The authors even discuss the calculation of 'effect sizes' for qualitative findings. Qualitative metasummaries can be undertaken as an end in themselves or may serve as a basis for a further synthesis.

Dimensions of difference

Having outlined the range of methods identified, we now turn to an examination of how they compare with one another. It is clear that they have come from many different contexts and have different approaches to understanding knowledge, but what do these differences mean in practice? Our framework for this analysis is shown in Additional file 1 : dimensions of difference [ 48 ]. We have examined the epistemology of each of the methods and found that, to some extent, this explains the need for different methods and their various approaches to synthesis.

Epistemology

The first dimension that we will consider is that of the researchers' epistemological assumptions. Spencer et al [ 49 ] outline a range of epistemological positions, which might be organised into a spectrum as follows:

Subjective idealism : there is no shared reality independent of multiple alternative human constructions

Objective idealism : there is a world of collectively shared understandings

Critical realism : knowledge of reality is mediated by our perceptions and beliefs

Scientific realism : it is possible for knowledge to approximate closely an external reality

Naïve realism : reality exists independently of human constructions and can be known directly [ 49 , 45 , 46 ].

Thus, at one end of the spectrum we have a highly constructivist view of knowledge and, at the other, an unproblematized 'direct window onto the world' view.

Nearly all of positions along this spectrum are represented in the range of methodological approaches to synthesis covered in this paper. The originators of meta-narrative synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-study all articulate what might be termed a 'subjective idealist' approach to knowledge. Paterson et al [ 28 ] state that meta-study shies away from creating 'grand theories' within the health or social sciences and assume that no single objective reality will be found. Primary studies, they argue, are themselves constructions; meta-synthesis, then, 'deals with constructions of constructions' (p7). Greenhalgh et al [ 32 ] also view knowledge as a product of its disciplinary paradigm and use this to explain conflicting findings: again, the authors neither seek, nor expect to find, one final, non-contestable answer to their research question. Critical interpretive synthesis is similar in seeking to place literature within its context, to question its assumptions and to produce a theoretical model of a phenomenon which – because highly interpretive – may not be reproducible by different research teams at alternative points in time [[ 34 ], p11].

Methods used to synthesise grounded theory studies in order to produce a higher level of grounded theory [ 24 ] appear to be informed by 'objective idealism', as does meta-ethnography. Kearney argues for the near-universal applicability of a 'ready-to-wear' theory across contexts and populations. This approach is clearly distinct from one which recognises multiple realities. The emphasis is on examining commonalities amongst, rather than discrepancies between, accounts. This emphasis is similarly apparent in most meta-ethnographies, which are conducted either according to Noblit and Hare's 'reciprocal translational analysis' technique or to their 'lines-of-argument' technique and which seek to provide a 'whole' which has a greater explanatory power. Although Noblit and Hare also propose 'refutational synthesis', in which contradictory findings might be explored, there are few examples of this having been undertaken in practice, and the aim of the method appears to be to explain and explore differences due to context, rather than multiple realities.

Despite an assumption of a reality which is perhaps less contestable than those of meta-narrative synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-study, both grounded formal theory and meta-ethnography place a great deal of emphasis on the interpretive nature of their methods. This still supposes a degree of constructivism. Although less explicit about how their methods are informed, it seems that both thematic synthesis and framework synthesis – while also involving some interpretation of data – share an even less problematized view of reality and a greater assumption that their synthetic products are reproducible and correspond to a shared reality. This is also implicit in the fact that such products are designed directly to inform policy and practice, a characteristic shared by ecological triangulation. Notably, ecological triangulation, according to Banning, can be either realist or idealist. Banning argues that the interpretation of triangulation can either be one in which multiple viewpoints converge on a point to produce confirming evidence (i.e. one definitive answer to the research question) or an idealist one, in which the complexity of multiple viewpoints is represented. Thus, although ecological triangulation views reality as complex, the approach assumes that it can be approximately knowable (at least when the realist view of ecological triangulation is adopted) and that interventions can and should be modelled according to the products of its syntheses.

While pigeonholing different methods into specific epistemological positions is a problematic process, we do suggest that the contrasting epistemologies of different researchers is one way of explaining why we have – and need – different methods for synthesis.

Variation in terms of the extent of iteration during the review process is another key dimension. All synthesis methods include some iteration but the degree varies. Meta-ethnography, grounded theory and thematic synthesis all include iteration at the synthesis stage; both framework synthesis and critical interpretive synthesis involve iterative literature searching – in the case of critical interpretive synthesis, it is not clear whether iteration occurs during the rest of the review process. Meta-narrative also involves iteration at every stage. Banning does not mention iteration in outlining ecological triangulation and neither do Lucas or Thomas and Harden for thematic narrative synthesis.

It seems that the more idealist the approach, the greater the extent of iteration. This might be because a large degree of iteration does not sit well with a more 'positivist' ideal of procedural objectivity; in particular, the notion that the robustness of the synthetic product depends in part on the reviewers stating up front in a protocol their searching strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria etc, and being seen not to alter these at a later stage.

Quality assessment

Another dimension along which we can look at different synthesis methods is that of quality assessment. When the approaches to the assessment of the quality of studies retrieved for review are examined, there is again a wide methodological variation. It might be expected that the further towards the 'realism' end of the epistemological spectrum a method of synthesis falls, the greater the emphasis on quality assessment. In fact, this is only partially the case.

Framework synthesis, thematic narrative synthesis and thematic synthesis – methods which might be classified as sharing a 'critical realist' approach – all have highly specified approaches to quality assessment. The review in which framework synthesis was developed applied ten quality criteria: two on quality and reporting of sampling methods, four to the quality of the description of the sample in the study, two to the reliability and validity of the tools used to collect data and one on whether studies used appropriate methods for helping people to express their views. Studies which did not meet a certain number of quality criteria were excluded from contributing to findings. Similarly, in the example review for thematic synthesis, 12 criteria were applied: five related to reporting aims, context, rationale, methods and findings; four relating to reliability and validity; and three relating to the appropriateness of methods for ensuring that findings were rooted in participants' own perspectives. Studies which were deemed to have significant flaws were excluded and sensitivity analyses were used to assess the possible impact of study quality on the review's findings. Thomas and Harden's use of thematic narrative synthesis similarly applied quality criteria and developed criteria additional to those they found in the literature on quality assessment, relating to the extent to which people's views and perspectives had been privileged by researchers. It is worth noting not only that these methods apply quality criteria but that they are explicit about what they are: assessing quality is a key component in the review process for both of these methods. Likewise, Banning – the originator of ecological triangulation – sees quality assessment as important and adapts the Design and Implementation Assessment Device (DIAD) Version 0.3 (a quality assessment tool for quantitative research) for use when appraising qualitative studies [ 50 ]. Again, Banning writes of excluding studies deemed to be of poor quality.

Greenhalgh et al's meta-narrative review [ 32 ] modified a range of existing quality assessment tools to evaluate studies according to validity and robustness of methods; sample size and power; and validity of conclusions. The authors imply, but are not explicit, that this process formed the basis for the exclusion of some studies. Although not quite so clear about quality assessment methods as framework and thematic synthesis, it might be argued that meta-narrative synthesis shows a greater commitment to the concept that research can and should be assessed for quality than either meta-ethnography or grounded formal theory. The originators of meta-ethnography, Noblit and Hare [ 8 ], originally discussed quality in terms of quality of metaphor, while more recent use of this method has used amended versions of CASP (the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool, [ 31 ]), yet has only referred to studies being excluded on the basis of lack of relevance or because they weren't 'qualitative' studies [ 8 ]. In grounded theory, quality assessment is only discussed in terms of a 'personal note' being made on the context, quality and usefulness of each study. However, contrary to expectation, meta-narrative synthesis lies at the extreme end of the idealism/realism spectrum – as a subjective idealist approach – while meta-ethnography and grounded theory are classified as objective idealist approaches.

Finally, meta-study and critical interpretive synthesis – two more subjective idealist approaches – look to the content and utility of findings rather than methodology in order to establish quality. While earlier forms of meta-study included only studies which demonstrated 'epistemological soundness', in its most recent form [ 51 ] this method has sought to include all relevant studies, excluding only those deemed not to be 'qualitative' research. Critical interpretive synthesis also conforms to what we might expect of its approach to quality assessment: quality of research is judged as the extent to which it informs theory. The threshold of inclusion is informed by expertise and instinct rather than being articulated a priori.

In terms of quality assessment, it might be important to consider the academic context in which these various methods of synthesis developed. The reason why thematic synthesis, framework synthesis and ecological triangulation have such highly specified approaches to quality assessment may be that each of these was developed for a particular task, i.e. to conduct a multi-method review in which randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The concept of quality assessment in relation to RCTs is much less contested and there is general agreement on criteria against which quality should be judged.

Problematizing the literature

Critical interpretive synthesis, the meta-narrative approach and the meta-theory element of meta-study all share some common ground in that their review and synthesis processes include examining all aspects of the context in which knowledge is produced. In conducting a review on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups, critical interpretive synthesis sought to question 'the ways in which the literature had constructed the problematics of access, the nature of the assumptions on which it drew, and what has influenced its choice of proposed solutions' [[ 34 ], p6]. Although not claiming to have been directly influenced by Greenhalgh et al's meta-narrative approach, Dixon-Woods et al do cite it as sharing similar characteristics in the sense that it critiques the literature it reviews.

Meta-study uses meta-theory to describe and deconstruct the theories that shape a body of research and to assess its quality. One aspect of this process is to examine the historical evolution of each theory and to put it in its socio-political context, which invites direct comparison with meta-narrative synthesis. Greenhalgh et al put a similar emphasis on placing research findings within their social and historical context, often as a means of seeking to explain heterogeneity of findings. In addition, meta-narrative shares with critical interpretive synthesis an iterative approach to searching and selecting from the literature.

Framework synthesis, thematic synthesis, textual narrative synthesis, meta-ethnography and grounded theory do not share the same approach to problematizing the literature as critical interpretive synthesis, meta-study and meta-narrative. In part, this may be explained by the extent to which studies included in the synthesis represented a broad range of approaches or methodologies. This, in turn, may reflect the broadness of the review question and the extent to which the concepts contained within the question are pre-defined within the literature. In the case of both the critical interpretive synthesis and meta-narrative reviews, terminology was elastic and/or the question formed iteratively. Similarly, both reviews placed great emphasis on employing multi-disciplinary research teams. Approaches which do not critique the literature in the same way tend to have more narrowly-focused questions. They also tend to include a more limited range of studies: grounded theory synthesis includes grounded theory studies, meta-ethnography (in its original form, as applied by Noblit and Hare) ethnographies. The thematic synthesis incorporated studies based on only a narrow range of qualitative methodologies (interviews and focus groups) which were informed by a similarly narrow range of epistemological assumptions. It may be that the authors of such syntheses saw no need for including such a critique in their review process.

Similarities and differences between primary studies

Most methods of synthesis are applicable to heterogeneous data (i.e. studies which use contrasting methodologies) apart from early meta-ethnography and synthesis informed by grounded theory. All methods of synthesis state that, at some level, studies are compared; many are not so explicit about how this is done, though some are. Meta-ethnography is one of the most explicit: it describes the act of 'translation' where terms and concepts which have resonance with one another are subsumed into 'higher order constructs'. Grounded theory, as represented by Eaves [ 17 ], is undertaken according to a long list of steps and sub-steps, includes the production of generalizations about concepts/categories, which comes from classifying these categories. In meta-narrative synthesis, comparable studies are grouped together at the appraisal phase of review.

Perhaps more interesting are the ways in which differences between studies are explored. Those methods with a greater emphasis on critical appraisal may tend (although this is not always made explicit) to use differences in method to explain differences in finding. Meta-ethnography proposes 'refutational synthesis' to explain differences, although there are few examples of this in the literature. Some synthesis methods – for example, thematic synthesis – look at other characteristics of the studies under review, whether types of participants and their context vary, and whether this can explain differences in perspective.

All of these methods, then, look within the studies to explain differences. Other methods look beyond the study itself to the context in which it was produced. Critical interpretive synthesis and meta-study look at differences in theory or in socio-economic context. Critical interpretive synthesis, like meta-narrative, also explores epistemological orientation. Meta-narrative is unique in concerning itself with disciplinary paradigm (i.e. the story of the discipline as it progresses). It is also distinctive in that it treats conflicting findings as 'higher order data' [[ 32 ], p420], so that the main emphasis of the synthesis appears to be on examining and explaining contradictions in the literature.

Going 'beyond' the primary studies

Synthesis is sometimes defined as a process resulting in a product, a 'whole', which is more than the sum of its parts. However, the methods reviewed here vary in the extent to which they attempt to 'go beyond' the primary studies and transform the data. Some methods – textual narrative synthesis, ecological triangulation and framework synthesis – focus on describing and summarising their primary data (often in a highly structured and detailed way) and translating the studies into one another. Others – meta-ethnography, grounded theory, thematic synthesis, meta-study, meta-narrative and critical interpretive synthesis – seek to push beyond the original data to a fresh interpretation of the phenomena under review. A key feature of thematic synthesis is its clear differentiation between these two stages.

Different methods have different mechanisms for going beyond the primary studies, although some are more explicit than others about what these entail. Meta-ethnography proposes a 'Line of Argument' (LOA) synthesis in which an interpretation is constructed to both link and explain a set of parts. Critical interpretive synthesis based its synthesis methods on those of meta-ethnography, developing an LOA using what the authors term 'synthetic constructs' (akin to 'third order constructs' in meta-ethnography) to create a 'synthesising argument'. Dixon-Woods et al claim that this is an advance on Britten et al's methods, in that they reject the difference between first, second and third order constructs.

Meta-narrative, as outlined above, focuses on conflicting findings and constructs theories to explain these in terms of differing paradigms. Meta study derives questions from each of its three components to which it subjects the dataset and inductively generates a number of theoretical claims in relation to it. According to Eaves' model of grounded theory [ 17 ], mini-theories are integrated to produce an explanatory framework. In ecological triangulation, the 'axial' codes – or second level codes evolved from the initial deductive open codes – are used to produce Banning's 'ecological sentence' [ 39 ].

The synthetic product

In overviewing and comparing different qualitative synthesis methods, the ultimate question relates to the utility of the synthetic product: what is it for? It is clear that some methods of synthesis – namely, thematic synthesis, textual narrative synthesis, framework synthesis and ecological triangulation – view themselves as producing an output that is directly applicable to policy makers and designers of interventions. The example of framework synthesis examined here (on children's, young people's and parents' views of walking and cycling) involved policy makers and practitioners in directing the focus of the synthesis and used the themes derived from the synthesis to infer what kind of interventions might be most effective in encouraging walking and cycling. Likewise, the products of the thematic synthesis took the form of practical recommendations for interventions (e.g. 'do not promote fruit and vegetables in the same way in the same intervention'). The extent to which policy makers and practitioners are involved in informing either synthesis or recommendation is less clear from the documents published on ecological triangulation, but the aim certainly is to directly inform practice.

The outputs of synthesis methods which have a more constructivist orientation – meta-study, meta-narrative, meta-ethnography, grounded theory, critical interpretive synthesis – tend to look rather different. They are generally more complex and conceptual, sometimes operating on the symbolic or metaphorical level, and requiring a further process of interpretation by policy makers and practitioners in order for them to inform practice. This is not to say, however, that they are not useful for practice, more that they are doing different work. However, it may be that, in the absence of further interpretation, they are more useful for informing other researchers and theoreticians.

Looking across dimensions

After examining the dimensions of difference of our included methods, what picture ultimately emerges? It seems clear that, while similar in some respects, there are genuine differences in approach to the synthesis of what is essentially textual data. To some extent, these differences can be explained by the epistemological assumptions that underpin each method. Our methods split into two broad camps: the idealist and the realist (see Table ​ Table1 1 for a summary). Idealist approaches generally tend to have a more iterative approach to searching (and the review process), have less a priori quality assessment procedures and are more inclined to problematize the literature. Realist approaches are characterised by a more linear approach to searching and review, have clearer and more well-developed approaches to quality assessment, and do not problematize the literature.

Summary table

N.B.: In terms of the above dimensions, it is generally a question of degree rather than of absolute distinctions.

Mapping the relationships between methods

What is interesting is the relationship between these methods of synthesis, the conceptual links between them, and the extent to which the originators cite – or, in some cases, don't cite – one another. Some methods directly build on others – framework synthesis builds on framework analysis, for example, while grounded theory and constant comparative analysis build on grounded theory. Others further develop existing methods – meta-study, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-narrative all adapt aspects of meta-ethnography, while also importing concepts from other theorists (critical interpretive synthesis also adapts grounded theory techniques).

Some methods share a clear conceptual link, without directly citing one another: for example, the analytical themes developed during thematic synthesis are comparable to the third order interpretations of meta-ethnography. The meta-theory aspect of meta-study is echoed in both meta-narrative synthesis and critical interpretive synthesis (see 'Problematizing the literature, above); however, the originators of critical interpretive synthesis only refer to the originators of meta-study in relation to their use of sampling techniques.

While methods for qualitative synthesis have many similarities, there are clear differences in approach between them, many of which can be explained by taking account of a given method's epistemology.

However, within the two broad idealist/realist categories, any differences between methods in terms of outputs appear to be small.

Since many systematic reviews are designed to inform policy and practice, it is important to select a method – or type of method – that will produce the kind of conclusions needed. However, it is acknowledged that this is not always simple or even possible to achieve in practice.

The approaches that result in more easily translatable messages for policy-makers and practitioners may appear to be more attractive than the others; but we do need to take account lessons from the more idealist end of the spectrum, that some perspectives are not universal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

Both authors made substantial contributions, with EBP taking a lead on writing and JT on the analytical framework. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/9/59/prepub

Supplementary Material

Dimensions of difference . Ranging from subjective idealism through objective idealism and critical realism to scientific realism to naïve realism

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful contributions of the following in commenting on earlier drafts of this paper: David Gough, Sandy Oliver, Angela Harden, Mary Dixon-Woods, Trisha Greenhalgh and Barbara L. Paterson. We would also like to thank the peer reviewers: Helen J Smith, Rosaline Barbour and Mark Rodgers for their helpful reviews. The methodological development was supported by the Department of Health (England) and the ESRC through the Methods for Research Synthesis Node of the National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM). An earlier draft of this paper currently appears as a working paper on the National Centre for Research Methods' website http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/ .

• Dixon-Woods M, Agarwhal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005; 10 (1):45–53b. doi: 10.1258/1355819052801804. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour RS, Barbour M. Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003; 9 (2):179–186. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00371.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):6–20. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308576. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Shaw RL, Smith J, Sutton A, Young B. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006; 6 :27–44. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence: a Guide to Methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorne S, Jenson L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M. Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res. 2004; 14 :1342–1365. doi: 10.1177/1049732304269888. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews. CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York: CRD; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. London: Sage; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strike K, Posner G. In: Knowledge Structure and Use. Ward S, Reed L, editor. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1983. Types of synthesis and their criteria. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner S. Sociological Explanation as Translation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta-ethnography to synthesis qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res. 2002; 7 :209–15. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432732. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 65 :671–84. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campbell R. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61 :133–155. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.063. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schutz A. Collected Paper. Vol. 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kearney MH. Enduring love: a grounded formal theory of women's experience of domestic violence. Research Nurs Health. 2001; 24 :270–82. doi: 10.1002/nur.1029. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eaves YD. A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2001; 35 :654–63. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01897.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finfgeld D. Courage as a process of pushing beyond the struggle. Qual Health Res. 1999; 9 :803–814. doi: 10.1177/104973299129122298. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. In: Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings. Emerson RM, editor. Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL; 1983. The grounded theory method: an explication and interpretation; pp. 109–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chesler MA. Professionals' Views of the Dangers of Self-Help Groups: Explicating a Grounded Theoretical Approach. [Michigan]: Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbour Centre for Research on Social Organisation, Working Paper Series; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kearney MH. Ready-to-wear: discovering grounded formal theory. Res Nurs Health. 1988; 21 :179–186. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199804)21:2<179::AID-NUR8>3.0.CO;2-G. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Meth. 2008; 8 :45. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas PJ, Arai L, Baird, Law C, Roberts HM. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Meth. 2007; 7 (4) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oakley A. Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research. J Epidemiol Community H. 2004; 58 :794–800. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.014829. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paterson BL, Thorne SE, Canam C, Jillings C. Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao S. Metatheory, metamethod, meta-data-analysis: what, why and how? Sociol Perspect. 1991; 34 :377–390. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritzer G. Metatheorizing in Sociology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) http://www.phru.nhs.uk/Pages/PHD/CASP.htm date unknown.
• Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61 :417–30. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Hsu R, Katbamna S, Olsen R, Smith L, Riley R, Sutton AJ. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Meth. 2006; 6 (35) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough D. In: Applied and Practice-based Research. 2. Furlong J, Oancea A, editor. Vol. 22. Special Edition of Research Papers in Education; 2007. Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence; pp. 213–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, Sechrest L. Unobtrusive Measures. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK. The Research Act: a Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Banning J. Ecological Triangulation. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Ecological%20Triangualtion.pdf
• Banning J. Ecological Sentence Synthesis. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Ecological%20Sentence%20Synthesis.pdf
• Brunton G, Oliver S, Oliver K, Lorenc T. A Synthesis of Research Addressing Children's, Young People's and Parents' Views of Walking and Cycling for Transport. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver S, Rees R, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley A, Gabbay J, Stein K, Buchanan P, Gyte G. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008; 11 :72–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000; 320 :114–116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie J, Spencer L. In: Analysing Qualitative Data. Bryman A, Burgess R, editor. London: Routledge; 1993. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research; pp. 173–194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans D, Fitzgerald M. Reasons for physically restraining patients and residents: a systematic review and content analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2002; 39 :739–743. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7489(02)00015-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suikkala A, Leino-Kilpi H. Nursing student-patient relationships: a review of the literature from 1984–1998. J Adv Nurs. 2000; 33 :42–50. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01636.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weed M. 'Meta-interpretation': a method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2005; 6 :Art 37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough D, Thomas J. Dimensions of difference in systematic reviews. http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/RMF2008/festival/programme/sys1
• Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: a Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Banning J. Design and Implementation Assessment Device (DIAD) Version 0.3: A response from a qualitative perspective. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Design%20and%20Implementation%20Assessment%20Device.pdf
• Paterson BL. In: Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice. Webb C, Roe B, editor. [Oxford]: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2007. Coming out as ill: understanding self-disclosure in chronic illness from a meta-synthesis of qualitative research; pp. 73–83. [ Google Scholar ]