Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

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.

Https

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.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2012 Jun 9:1:28.
doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28.

Clarifying differences between review designs and methods

David Gough  1 , James Thomas, Sandy Oliver
Affiliations
Editorial

Clarifying differences between review designs and methods

David Gough et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews. Terminology is necessary for planning, describing, appraising, and using reviews, building infrastructure to enable the conduct and use of reviews, and for further developing review methodology. There is insufficient consensus on terminology for a typology of reviews to be produced and any such attempt is likely to be limited by the overlapping nature of the dimensions along which reviews vary. It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation. Three such main dimensions are proposed: (1) aims and approaches (including what the review is aiming to achieve, the theoretical and ideological assumptions, and the use of theory and logics of aggregation and configuration in synthesis); (2) structure and components (including the number and type of mapping and synthesis components and how they relate); and (3) breadth and depth and the extent of 'work done' in addressing a research issue (including the breadth of review questions, the detail with which they are addressed, and the amount the review progresses a research agenda). This then provides an overarching strategy to encompass more detailed descriptions of methodology and may lead in time to a more overarching system of terminology for systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Continua of approaches in aggregative and configurative reviews.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A map leading to several syntheses.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A mixed method review with three syntheses.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mixed knowledge review.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Cooper H, Hedges L. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York; 1994.
    1. Gough D. Dimensions of difference in evidence reviews (Overview; I. Questions, evidence and methods; II.Breadth and depth; III. Methodological approaches; IV. Quality and relevance appraisal; V. Communication, interpretation and application. Series of six posters presented at National Centre for Research Methods meeting, Manchester. EPPI-Centre, London; January 2007. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=1919.
    1. Gough D, Thomas J. In: Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editor. Sage, London; 2012. Commonality and diversity in reviews; pp. 35–65.
    1. Chalmers I, Hedges L, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Professions. 2002;25:12–37. doi: 10.1177/0163278702025001003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bohlin I. Formalising syntheses of medical knowledge: the rise of meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Perspect Sci. in press. in press.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources