What Level of Evidence Is an Integrative Review
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, but I'm not sure what are the differences between an integrative review and a systematic review. Thank you
Get assist with your research
Bring together ResearchGate to ask questions, go input, and accelerate your work.
Most contempo reply
University of Central Florida
Pop Answers (1)
Federation University Australia
Davinia - I'g not surprised that you are dislocated. There is a lot of confusion effectually these terms as they are used interchangeably. An integrative review is a full general review of the existing literature as a 'systematic' procedure. It unremarkably involves both quantitative and qualitative studies - hence 'integrative' (inclusive) - but is non always the example. Some people too 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 dislocated are 'narrative review' and just the plain, elementary 'literature review'. If you add into the 'rich' mix - contexts such equally 'concept analysis' and 'discourse analysis' and 'meta-analysis' - then it becomes more confusing. The fastened affiliate may assist.
All Answers (44)
Federation University Australia
Davinia - I'yard not surprised that you are confused. At that place is a lot of confusion around these terms as they are used interchangeably. An integrative review is a general review of the existing literature as a 'systematic' process. It usually involves both quantitative and qualitative studies - hence 'integrative' (inclusive) - only is not always the case. Some people also call it a systematic review. Withal, this procedure 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 just the plain, simple 'literature review'. If you lot add into the 'rich' mix - contexts such every bit 'concept analysis' and 'discourse analysis' and 'meta-assay' - so it becomes more confusing. The fastened chapter may assist.
Narayana Dental College and Infirmary
Dear Davinia Mª Resurrección please check the pdfs regards
Glasgow Caledonian Academy
I have a slightly different interpretation to what Dean said in a higher place, although like him I am besides not surprised that you are confused! I would suggest that an integrative review is simply a specific course of systematic review, usually undertaken where meta-analysis or meta-ethnography of 1 form or another cannot be carried out, but which allows for the combination of diverse methods to synthesise the findings. In that location is all-time practise guidance past Whittemore and Knafl (2005) in Journal of Advanced Nursing, and as well a nice paper past de Souza et al (2010) called Integrative Review: What is information technology? How to Practise it? I have undertaken one of these myself and registered it every bit an integrative review on Prospero, the international register of systematic reviews (and avoided the Cochrane Collaboration).
University of South Australia
And just to make it even more confusing, there are scoping reviews, which appear to exist somewhat similar in thought 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 most 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'south studies, etc. Is there any publication related to how to deal with quality of the studies in an integrative review? Thanks!
Glasgow Caledonian University
Hi Davinia, there is. The post-obit are all good Pope C, Mays N and Popay J (2008) Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Health Research: A Guide to Methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Popay J (2006) Moving Beyond Effectiveness in Evidence Synthesis: Methodological Issues in the Synthesis of Diverse Sources of Testify. London: National Found for Health and Clinical Excellence. Promise these assist!
The search strategy developed by U.s.a. National Library of Medicine to create the systematic reviews subset on PubMed lists all interchangeable words.
Your talk is really interesting. Please can yous talk a little about the use of PICO, PICOD, PICOT at : a) Integrative Revue and b) Systematic Revue. When I read Whittemore & Knafl (2005), I run across 5 steps, without reference to PICO or PICo. I'chiliad sorry I don't write very well in English
Howdy, Davinia, I retrieve that information technology is not just yous are confused but there are many people might non know it. What review did yous chose in the finish? It too depended the subject and the aim that you lot want to practise review. I accept done a integrative review about Augmented reality in medical education. I accept also led a protocol of Cochrane review project about online learning for medical student. Each method has their limitation.The AMEE guide paper mentioned the limitation of systematic review for medical education that the result of systematic reviews depended on the measurement points chosen by researcher. I have stiff feeling about information technology when I led the Cochrane review projection. However, systematic review is broadly accepted in medicine area.
Universidad Loyola Andalucía
Hi Egui, At least, I carried a systematic review following PRISMA statement.
Davinia, This may be of use in the future for conducting QA with disparate research studies used in integrative reviews. I utilise Bell-ringer, S., South. Payne, et al. (2002). "Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Information Systematically." Qualitative Health Research 12(9): 1284-1299 (run into 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 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 like to advise y'all, read an article titled: Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the Past and Nowadays to Explore the Future by Richard J. Torraco (2016)
We went back trying to locate origens and methods used in nursing for integrative reviews. We did an article about it. Hope it helps
Narayana Dental College and Hospital
The master divergence between a systematic review and an integrative review is the types of studies that are included in the review. Systematic reviews include but 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'm with Ronny. It'southward basically what I said to a higher place.
London South Banking concern Academy
Are integrated reviews ranked in the hierarchy of prove?
Someone only asked me to explicate how to exercise a discursive review? Does anyone know what that ways, compared to an integrative or systematic review?
Glasgow Caledonian University
Hullo Karen, a discursive review involves examining the underpinning discourses within a corpus of literature, to reveal the different broad thrusts taken. I suppose you could combine it with the formality of the systematic/integrative review, simply I haven't seen one that goes that far. Unremarkably one would utilize methods such every bit critical discourse analysis, but y'all could also apply content assay or a combination of the ii.
Glasgow Caledonian University
And Laura, sad only seeing your annotate now; Integrative Reviews are a class of systematic review, so aye: they rank very highly in bear witness hierarchies (just below 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 inquiry articles in integrative reviews where there are both quantitative and qualitative.
I used this tool in my integrative review, I think that yous may notice information technology useful
Systematic reviews combine the primary show of multiple studies regarding a specific clinical problem to inform clinical do and are the method of selection for evidence-based practice. Systematiic reviews are at the acme of hierarchy of science research of chief source prove. An integrative review is the broadest type of research review method, enabling for the collective inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research supporting a more than fully understanding of a phenomenon of business. intergrative review will research master evidene but such as evidence 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 chief research. enquiry on research.
Manipal University of Higher Education
An integrative review is a full general review done in a systematic way. Y'all can include both qualitative and quantitative information in the same review. Wherein, in the systematic review, y'all can but take quantitative data(experimental written report) for your research.
École des Ponts ParisTech
Facing the same question, I plant this thread very helpful, give thanks you all for the answers! I would like to add a few more references from what I've learnt recently and promise they assist likewise. 1. Whittemore (2005) distinguished the four types of revews including ILR and SLR in definination, purpose, sampling frame etc, shown in tabular array 1 equally attached, in his commodity 'Combining the evidence in nursing research: methods and implications'; 2. Torraco's two manufactures 'Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples' (2005) and 'Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future (2016), as recommended by our Professor, provide clear guidelines for wirting ILR.
University Hospitals Of Leicester NHS Trust
Thank you everyone. Your responses have been really useful for my integrative review project
University of South Africa
Academy of South Africa
Muhammad Aledeh , is information technology suitable to employ integrative reviews in management sciences such every bit research in environmental management accounting EMA
Warsaw Schoolhouse of Economic science
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 assay merely does not have besides.
École des Ponts ParisTech
Beloved Temitope Omoworare: about your question for Muhammad Aledeh , absolutely aye, I simply wrote an ILR article related to business organisation direction as the postal service-grade assignment requested by our DBA class professor.
I believe, the ii approaches are exactly the opposite. A systematic review is reductionist, avoiding complication past reducing, beingness linear. An integrative review is the opposite of that - studying circuitous relations.
Beloved Davinia Chiliad Resurrección, Give thanks you then much for the question. I just endeavour to start writing an review article on my Ph.D topic. I truly believe that integrative review is based on quantitative and qualitative both the approaches but systematic review is based on qualitative approaches.
Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service
I conducted a systematic review synthesising both quantitative and qualitative studies. I used a mixed methods synthesis utilizing results-based convergent synthesis blueprint by Noyes et al. (2019). In this design, the following were undertaken: (i) thematic synthesis of qualitative studies, (two) thematic synthesis of quantitative studies, and (iii) assimilated synthesis (association and juxtaposition) of findings from both methods. I don't get with the definition of the integrative review being a review of both quantitative and qualitative studies combined because you can surely do this with systematic reviews. An integrative review is more than of conducting a review from diverse information sources. The key departure betwixt them lies in the purpose of your review. Y'all have to take note that Systematic Review is not just a mere word, summary and synthesis of findings that you gathered from primary data, but it is more of being a body of the authors' arguments from the data synthesised. The following link from Duquesne Academy will probably assistance in differentiating s systematic versus integrative versus scoping reviews. I hope this helps. Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh Eastward. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health. 2019;four(Suppl 1):e000893.
University of Northward Carolina at Charlotte
Think about "comprehensive review" instead.
Cheers anybody for your wisdom on these important topics. I totally concur that they are often very confusing. For me, I understood integrative review every bit review of diverse data sources, equally mentioned past Junel Padigos . Information sources here can include quantitative, qualitative including narrative papers, mixed methods studies and others like editorial, commentaries, supplements, strategies and guidelines. Please correct me if I am incorrect.
Hi Tara Laabar I concur with Junel Padigos also. The approach you outline is certainly what I understand by integrative review, and is the approach I used in my own integrative review which encompassed empirical work alongside guidelines, service improvements and commentaries etc. I followed Whittemore and Knafl's method (The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 2005; 52(five): 546–553).
I have more defoliation. I already use the "Mixed-Methods Systematic Review" term instead of integrative review...
Similar questions and discussions
Related Publications
Groundwork: Vestibular schwannomas (VS) are benign intracranial tumors originating from the vestibular partitioning of the eighth cranial nerve. Treatment options include microsurgery, radiotherapy, and surveillance. Endoscopy is becoming more than widely used every bit an adjunct in skull base surgery and may influence outcomes in surgically managed VS. Methods...
In full general, a Variable Construction (VS) organisation is designed with a sliding way. Recently a sliding sector, designed by an algebraic Riccati equation, has been proposed to replace the sliding mode for chattering-gratis VS controllers. In this paper we extend the design algorithm for the sliding sector to a fourth dimension-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
0 Response to "What Level of Evidence Is an Integrative Review"
Enregistrer un commentaire