Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems - PubMed (original) (raw)

Editorial

Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems

David Gough et al. Syst Rev. 2019.

Abstract

This paper builds on a 2012 paper by the same authors which argued that the types and brands of systematic review do not sufficiently differentiate between the many dimensions of different review questions and review methods (Gough et al., Syst Rev 1:28, 2012). The current paper extends this argument by considering the dynamic contexts, or 'evidence ecosystems', within which reviews are undertaken; the fact that these ecosystems are constantly changing; and the relevance of this broader context for understanding 'dimensions of difference' in the unfolding development and refinement of review methods.The concept of an evidence ecosystem is used to consider particular issues within the three key dimensions of difference outlined in the 2012 paper of (1) review aims and approach, (2) structure and components of reviews, and (3) breadth, depth, and 'work done' by reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1

Evidence use ecosystem analytical framework [5]

Fig. 2

‘Dimensions of difference’ in approaches to synthesis [2]

Fig. 3

Map of personal development planning research: research method by country [47]

Similar articles

• Clarifying differences between review designs and methods.
  Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Gough D, et al. Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 9;1:28. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28. Syst Rev. 2012. PMID: 22681772 Free PMC article.
• The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
  Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
• An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview.
  Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, Estcourt L, Brunton G. Hunt H, et al. Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 1;7(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8. Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29490699 Free PMC article.
• Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem.
  Khalil H, Tricco AC. Khalil H, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Sep;149:175-182. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.012. Epub 2022 May 27. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022. PMID: 35636593 Review.
• Evidence Brief: The Quality of Care Provided by Advanced Practice Nurses [Internet].
  McCleery E, Christensen V, Peterson K, Humphrey L, Helfand M. McCleery E, et al. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2014 Sep. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2014 Sep. PMID: 27606392 Free Books & Documents. Review.

Cited by

• Ethically Driven and Methodologically Tailored: Setting the Agenda for Systematic Reviews in Domestic Violence and Abuse.
  Schucan Bird K, Stokes N, Tomlinson M, Rivas C. Schucan Bird K, et al. J Fam Violence. 2023 Apr 3:1-15. doi: 10.1007/s10896-023-00541-7. Online ahead of print. J Fam Violence. 2023. PMID: 37358972 Free PMC article.
• How to Conduct a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Clinicians.
  Zaccagnini M, Li J. Zaccagnini M, et al. Respir Care. 2023 Sep;68(9):1295-1308. doi: 10.4187/respcare.10971. Epub 2023 Apr 18. Respir Care. 2023. PMID: 37072163 Free PMC article.
• [The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas].
  Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. Page MJ, et al. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022 Dec 30;46:e112. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2022.112. eCollection 2022. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2022. PMID: 36601438 Free PMC article. Portuguese.
• Is a one-size-fits-all '12-month rule' appropriate when it comes to the last search date in systematic reviews?
  Stokes G, Sutcliffe K, Thomas J. Stokes G, et al. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Nov 22;28(6):359-363. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112060. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023. PMID: 36600443 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• No Recommendation Is (at Least Presently) the Best Recommendation: An Updating Quality Appraisal of Recommendations on Screening for Scoliosis.
  Płaszewski M. Płaszewski M. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 30;19(11):6659. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116659. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 35682242 Free PMC article.

References

1. 1. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1:28. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
2. 1. Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews: 2nd Edition. London: Sage; 2017.
3. 1. Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods’, Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research. Debate and Pract. 2010;6(2):145–159. doi: 10.1332/174426410X502284. - DOI
4. 1. Nowotny H. The potential of transdisciplinarity. Available at: http://www.helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b59.pdf
5. 1. Gough D, Maidment C, Sharples J (2018). UK What Works Centres: aims, methods and contexts. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London. ISBN: 978-1-911605-03-4

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • BioMed Central
  • Europe PubMed Central
  • PubMed Central