Where Do Integrative Review Fall in the Research Hierarchy
Integrative review VS systematic review?
I am currently working in a review and I discovered the "integrative review". I have read several articles related to that, only I'm not certain what are the differences between an integrative review and a systematic review. Thank you
Go help with your research
Bring together ResearchGate to ask questions, become input, and accelerate your work.
Most contempo respond
Academy of Primal Florida
Popular Answers (1)
Federation University Australia
Davinia - I'm not surprised that y'all are confused. In that location is a lot of defoliation effectually these terms as they are used interchangeably. An integrative review is a full general review of the existing literature as a 'systematic' process. It usually involves both quantitative and qualitative studies - hence 'integrative' (inclusive) - but is not e'er the case. Some people also call it a systematic review. However, this process is very different to a Cochrane-based 'systematic review' (sometimes meta-analysis) of clinical trials. Other terms that are used and confused are 'narrative review' and only the plain, simple 'literature review'. If you add together into the 'rich' mix - contexts such every bit 'concept analysis' and 'discourse analysis' and 'meta-analysis' - and so it becomes more confusing. The fastened chapter may assist.
All Answers (44)
Federation University Australia
Davinia - I'thou not surprised that you lot are confused. There is a lot of confusion around these terms as they are used interchangeably. An integrative review is a general review of the existing literature equally a 'systematic' process. It ordinarily involves both quantitative and qualitative studies - hence 'integrative' (inclusive) - just is non always the case. Some people also call it a systematic review. Yet, this process is very dissimilar to a Cochrane-based 'systematic review' (sometimes meta-assay) of clinical trials. Other terms that are used and confused are 'narrative review' and just the plain, elementary 'literature review'. If you add into the 'rich' mix - contexts such as 'concept analysis' and 'discourse analysis' and 'meta-analysis' - then information technology becomes more than confusing. The attached chapter may assistance.
Narayana Dental College and Infirmary
Beloved Davinia Mª Resurrección please check the pdfs regards
Glasgow Caledonian University
I have a slightly different estimation to what Dean said to a higher place, although like him I am also not surprised that yous are confused! I would suggest that an integrative review is simply a specific form of systematic review, usually undertaken where meta-analysis or meta-ethnography of one form or some other cannot be carried out, but which allows for the combination of diverse methods to synthesise the findings. There is best practice guidance past Whittemore and Knafl (2005) in Journal of Advanced Nursing, and also a nice newspaper past de Souza et al (2010) called Integrative Review: What is information technology? How to Do it? I have undertaken one of these myself and registered it as an integrative review on Prospero, the international annals of systematic reviews (and avoided the Cochrane Collaboration).
Academy of South Australia
And just to brand it even more confusing, there are scoping reviews, which appear to be somewhat similar in idea to integrative reviews. Many of my students have undertaken scoping reviews and have been successful in getting them published.
Universidad Loyola Andalucía
Thanks for your responses and for the attached pdfs. What about the quality of the studies that are included in the review? If we're including qualitative and quantitative studies, the quality is quite difficult. Moreover, if in the quantitative studies we include retrospective studies, RCT's studies, etc. Is in that location whatever publication related to how to deal with quality of the studies in an integrative review? Cheers!
Glasgow Caledonian University
Howdy Davinia, there is. The following are all adept Pope C, Mays North and Popay J (2008) Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Health Research: A Guide to Methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Loma. Popay J (2006) Moving Across Effectiveness in Prove Synthesis: Methodological Issues in the Synthesis of Diverse Sources of Evidence. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Hope these assist!
The search strategy developed by United states National Library of Medicine to create the systematic reviews subset on PubMed lists all interchangeable words.
Your talk is really interesting. Please can you talk a footling about the utilise of PICO, PICOD, PICOT at : a) Integrative Revue and b) Systematic Revue. When I read Whittemore & Knafl (2005), I see 5 steps, without reference to PICO or PICo. I'thousand sorry I don't write very well in English language
Hi, Davinia, I think that it is non only you lot are confused merely at that place are many people might non know it. What review did you lot chose in the end? Information technology also depended the subject area and the aim that you want to do review. I have washed a integrative review about Augmented reality in medical education. I have also led a protocol of Cochrane review project virtually online learning for medical pupil. Each method has their limitation.The AMEE guide newspaper mentioned the limitation of systematic review for medical education that the result of systematic reviews depended on the measurement points called past researcher. I take potent feeling about it when I led the Cochrane review project. Still, systematic review is broadly accepted in medicine area.
Universidad Loyola Andalucía
Hi Egui, At least, I carried a systematic review following PRISMA argument.
Davinia, This may exist of use in the hereafter for conducting QA with disparate research studies used in integrative reviews. I use Hawker, Due south., Due south. Payne, et al. (2002). "Appraising the Testify: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically." Qualitative Wellness Research 12(9): 1284-1299 (see attachment for checklist). Margarida had asked most the usefulness of the PICOT format for integrative reviews. My understanding is that this format is more appropriate for a systematic review which has a more than narrow focus using homogenous methods than an integrative review which is examining phenomena more than broadly and using disparate methods.
National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA)
I would similar to propose you, read an commodity titled: Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the By and Present to Explore the Futurity by Richard J. Torraco (2016)
We went back trying to locate origens and methods used in nursing for integrative reviews. We did an commodity well-nigh it. Hope it helps
Narayana Dental College and Infirmary
The main difference betwixt a systematic review and an integrative review is the types of studies that are included in the review. Systematic reviews include merely quantitative, experimental studies, and many times only randomized controlled trials. Integrative reviews include both quantitative and qualitative studies, or, in other words, both experimental and non-experimental studies.
Glasgow Caledonian University
I'one thousand with Ronny. It's basically what I said above.
London South Banking concern University
Are integrated reviews ranked in the hierarchy of evidence?
Someone just asked me to explain how to do a discursive review? Does anyone know what that means, compared to an integrative or systematic review?
Glasgow Caledonian University
Hi Karen, a discursive review involves examining the underpinning discourses within a corpus of literature, to reveal the different broad thrusts taken. I suppose y'all could combine it with the formality of the systematic/integrative review, merely I haven't seen i that goes that far. Usually one would employ methods such as critical discourse analysis, but you lot could also employ content analysis or a combination of the two.
Glasgow Caledonian University
And Laura, pitiful just seeing your comment now; Integrative Reviews are a course of systematic review, and then yes: they rank very highly in bear witness hierarchies (just beneath RCTs usually, depending on which hierarchy one would employ).
I am struggling to be clear about how to evaluate the methodological quality of the primary research articles in integrative reviews where in that location are both quantitative and qualitative.
I used this tool in my integrative review, I think that y'all may find it useful
Systematic reviews combine the primary evidence of multiple studies regarding a specific clinical trouble to inform clinical practice and are the method of choice for evidence-based practise. Systematiic reviews are at the top of hierarchy of science enquiry of primary source testify. An integrative review is the broadest type of research review method, enabling for the collective inclusion of experimental and not-experimental enquiry supporting a more fully understanding of a miracle of concern. intergrative review will research primary evidene only such every bit bear witness presented within a systematic review allowing for the intergrated literture review to evaluate, interpret, systhesize the evidence of the systematic reviews. Moreover it is an intergrated literture review, researcing the evidence presented in the systematic literture review of the primary research. enquiry on research.
Manipal Academy of Higher Education
An integrative review is a general review done in a systematic way. You can include both qualitative and quantitative data in the same review. Wherein, in the systematic review, you tin can but take quantitative data(experimental report) for your research.
École des Ponts ParisTech
Facing the same question, I establish this thread very helpful, thank you all for the answers! I would like to add a few more references from what I've learnt recently and hope they help too. 1. Whittemore (2005) distinguished the four types of revews including ILR and SLR in definination, purpose, sampling frame etc, shown in table i as attached, in his article 'Combining the evidence in nursing enquiry: methods and implications'; 2. Torraco's ii articles 'Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples' (2005) and 'Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future (2016), every bit recommended by our Professor, provide clear guidelines for wirting ILR.
University Hospitals Of Leicester NHS Trust
Thanks anybody. Your responses take been really useful for my integrative review projection
University of South Africa
University of South Africa
Muhammad Aledeh , is it suitable to use integrative reviews in management sciences such as research in environmental management bookkeeping EMA
Warsaw School of Economics
An interesting piece on ILR:Torraco (2006) , Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Interestingly, Littell et al (2008) underlines that SLR and meta analysis are not synononyms, SLR can include meta analysis but does not have too.
École des Ponts ParisTech
Dearest Temitope Omoworare: about your question for Muhammad Aledeh , admittedly yep, I merely wrote an ILR article related to business management as the post-class assignment requested by our DBA grade professor.
I believe, the two approaches are exactly the opposite. A systematic review is reductionist, fugitive complexity by reducing, being linear. An integrative review is the reverse of that - studying complex relations.
Honey Davinia Chiliad Resurrección, Thanks so much for the question. I just endeavor to showtime writing an review article on my Ph.D topic. I truly believe that integrative review is based on quantitative and qualitative both the approaches only systematic review is based on qualitative approaches.
Sunshine Coast Hospital and Wellness Service
I conducted a systematic review synthesising both quantitative and qualitative studies. I used a mixed methods synthesis utilizing results-based convergent synthesis design by Noyes et al. (2019). In this design, the following were undertaken: (i) thematic synthesis of qualitative studies, (ii) thematic synthesis of quantitative studies, and (iii) assimilated synthesis (association and juxtaposition) of findings from both methods. I don't go with the definition of the integrative review being a review of both quantitative and qualitative studies combined because yous can surely do this with systematic reviews. An integrative review is more than of conducting a review from diverse information sources. The key difference betwixt them lies in the purpose of your review. You have to accept note that Systematic Review is non only a mere discussion, summary and synthesis of findings that yous gathered from primary data, but information technology is more of being a body of the authors' arguments from the data synthesised. The post-obit link from Duquesne Academy will probably help in differentiating s systematic versus integrative versus scoping reviews. I hope this helps. Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming Thousand, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh Eastward. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative bear witness to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Think about "comprehensive review" instead.
Thank you everyone for your wisdom on these of import topics. I totally concord that they are often very disruptive. For me, I understood integrative review as review of diverse data sources, as mentioned past Junel Padigos . Information sources here tin can include quantitative, qualitative including narrative papers, mixed methods studies and others like editorial, commentaries, supplements, strategies and guidelines. Please right me if I am incorrect.
Hi Tara Laabar I hold with Junel Padigos equally well. The arroyo you lot outline is certainly what I empathize by integrative review, and is the approach I used in my ain integrative review which encompassed empirical work alongside guidelines, service improvements and commentaries etc. I followed Whittemore and Knafl'due south method (The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 2005; 52(5): 546–553).
I accept more than defoliation. I already use the "Mixed-Methods Systematic Review" term instead of integrative review...
Similar questions and discussions
Related Publications
Background: Vestibular schwannomas (VS) are beneficial intracranial tumors originating from the vestibular division of the eighth cranial nerve. Treatment options include microsurgery, radiotherapy, and surveillance. Endoscopy is becoming more than widely used every bit an offshoot in skull base surgery and may influence outcomes in surgically managed VS. Methods...
In general, a Variable Structure (VS) system is designed with a sliding style. Recently a sliding sector, designed by an algebraic Riccati equation, has been proposed to replace the sliding mode for chattering-free VS controllers. In this paper we extend the design algorithm for the sliding sector to a time-varying sliding sector. The time-varying s...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Integrative_review_VS_systematic_review#:~:text=Systematiic%20reviews%20are%20at%20the,of%20a%20phenomenon%20of%20concern.
0 Response to "Where Do Integrative Review Fall in the Research Hierarchy"
Post a Comment