The volume of research literature is enormous, so keeping up with the latest studies is difficult. Systematic reviews are a form of research that pools the results of multiple studies. Quantitative reviews statistically pool results, and qualitative reviews narratively pool results. Reviews are becoming common, but some nurses may be unaware of what a systematic review is and how to conduct one. The aim of this overview is to acquaint nurses with qualitative systematic reviews (research syntheses) by providing information about where to begin a synthesis, the stages of the synthesis process, and how to write a manuscript to report synthesis results.
Boote, D.N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34, 3-15.
2.
Brown, S.A., Upchurch, S.L., & Acton, G.J. (2003). A framework for developing a coding scheme for meta-analysis. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25, 205-222.
3.
Cooper, H. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1, 104-126.
4.
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
5.
Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin,129, 3-9.
6.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L.V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7.
Droogan, J., & Cullum, N. (1998). Systematic reviews in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 35, 13-22. Fox, D.M. (2005). Evidence of evidence-based health policy: The politics of systematic reviews in coverage decisions. Health Affairs, 24, 114-122.
8.
Garrard, J. (1999). Health sciences literature review made easy: A matrix method. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
9.
Glanville, J., & Sowden, A.J. (2001). Phase 0: Identification of the need for a review . In S. K. Khan, G. T. Riet, J. Glanville, A. J. Sowden, & J. Kleijnen (Eds.), Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews (Report 4, 2nd ed., Stage 1: Planning the Review, pp.3-8). York, UK: University of York Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm
10.
Halvorsen, K.T. (1994). The reporting format. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp.425-437). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
11.
Khan, S.K., Glanville, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2001). Phase I: Preparation of a proposal for systematic review. In S. K. Khan, G. T. Riet, J. Glanville , A. J. Sowden, & J. Kleijnen (Eds.), Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews (Report 4, 2nd ed., Stage 1: Planning the Review, pp.1-8). York, UK: University of York Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm
12.
Khan, S.K., Riet, G.T., Glanville, J., Sowden, A. J., & Kleijnen, J. (Eds.). (2001). Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews (Report 4, 2nd ed.). York, UK: University of York Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm
13.
McGowan, J., Ottawa Health Research Institute/Institute of Population Health , Sampson, M., & Chalmers Research Group. (2005). Systematic reviews need systematic searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93, 74-80.
14.
Moncrieff, J. (1998). Research synthesis: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . International Review of Psychiatry, 10, 304-311.
15.
Rutledge, D.N., DePalma, J.A., & Cunningham, M. (2004). A process model for
16.
evidence-based literature syntheses. Oncology Nursing Forum , 31, 543-550.
17.
Sox, H. C., Laine, C. , & Mulrow, C. D. (Eds.). (2005). Reviews: Making sense of an often tangled skein of evidence. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142, 1019-1020.
18.
Upchurch, S., Brosnan, C.A., & Grimes, D.E. (2002). Teaching research synthesis to advanced practice nurses. Faculty Forum, 41, 222-226.
19.
van Tulder, M.W., Assendelft, W.J.J., Koes, B.W., Bouter, L.M., & The Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. (1997). Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for spinal disorders. Spine: An International Journal for the Study of the Spine, 22, 2323-2330.
20.
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 546-553.
