当前位置: X-MOL 学术Res. Synth. Methods › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation.
Research Synthesis Methods ( IF 5.0 ) Pub Date : 2016-11-17 , DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1231
G J Melendez-Torres 1 , A O'Mara-Eves 2 , J Thomas 2 , G Brunton 2 , J Caird 2 , M Petticrew 3
Affiliation  

Using Toulmin's argumentation theory, we analysed the texts of systematic reviews in the area of workplace health promotion to explore differences in the modes of reasoning embedded in reports of narrative synthesis as compared with reports of meta‐analysis. We used framework synthesis, grounded theory and cross‐case analysis methods to analyse 85 systematic reviews addressing intervention effectiveness in workplace health promotion. Two core categories, or ‘modes of reasoning’, emerged to frame the contrast between narrative synthesis and meta‐analysis: practical–configurational reasoning in narrative synthesis (‘what is going on here? What picture emerges?’) and inferential–predictive reasoning in meta‐analysis (‘does it work, and how well? Will it work again?’). Modes of reasoning examined quality and consistency of the included evidence differently. Meta‐analyses clearly distinguished between warrant and claim, whereas narrative syntheses often presented joint warrant–claims. Narrative syntheses and meta‐analyses represent different modes of reasoning. Systematic reviewers are likely to be addressing research questions in different ways with each method. It is important to consider narrative synthesis in its own right as a method and to develop specific quality criteria and understandings of how it is carried out, not merely as a complement to, or second‐best option for, meta‐analysis. © 2016 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

中文翻译:

对 85 篇系统评价的解释性分析表明,叙述性综合和荟萃分析在论证中是不相称的。

使用 Toulmin 的论证理论,我们分析了工作场所健康促进领域的系统评价文本,以探索与元分析报告相比,叙述综合报告中嵌入的推理模式的差异。我们使用框架综合、扎根理论和跨案例分析方法来分析 85 篇系统评价,这些评价涉及工作场所健康促进中的干预效果。出现了两个核心类别,或“推理模式”,以构成叙事综合和元分析之间的对比:叙事综合中的实践-配置推理(“这里发生了什么?出现了什么画面?”)和推理-预测推理在荟萃分析中(“它有效吗,效果如何?它会再次有效吗?”)。推理模式以不同方式检查所包含证据的质量和一致性。元分析清楚地区分了保证和权利要求,而叙述性综合往往呈现联合的保证-权利要求。叙事综合和荟萃分析代表了不同的推理模式。系统评价者可能会使用每种方法以不同的方式解决研究问题。重要的是要将叙事综合本身视为一种方法,并制定具体的质量标准和对其实施方式的理解,而不仅仅是作为荟萃分析的补充或次优选择。© 2016 作者。叙事综合和荟萃分析代表了不同的推理模式。系统评价者可能会使用每种方法以不同的方式解决研究问题。重要的是要将叙事综合本身视为一种方法,并制定具体的质量标准和对其实施方式的理解,而不仅仅是作为荟萃分析的补充或次优选择。© 2016 作者。叙事综合和荟萃分析代表了不同的推理模式。系统评价者可能会使用每种方法以不同的方式解决研究问题。重要的是要将叙事综合本身视为一种方法,并制定具体的质量标准和对其实施方式的理解,而不仅仅是作为荟萃分析的补充或次优选择。© 2016 作者。研究合成方法由 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 出版。
更新日期:2016-11-17
down
wechat
bug