Synthesizing qualitative research : a review of published reports (Qualitative Research)

Systematic review has developed as a specific methodology for research synthesis involving explicit methods of searching for, appraising, and summarizing
and combining evidence. : the evidence based practice and policy movement

The advantages of systematic review methodology are seen to lie in its rigour and transparency of process, and the avoidance of the ‘biases’ associated with informal or inexplicit methods for identifying and assessing evidence

The limitations of many current methods for systematic review, which tend to focus on questions of effectiveness and to privilege quantitative forms of evidence, have become evident

little is known about which
(1) methods for synthesis are used and
(2) with what frequency, and
(3) how such syntheses deal with key challenges of review methodology,
(4) including methods for searching and appraisal.

These are important questions, particularly in contributing to debates about how far principles and methods of (conventional) systematic review have been incorporated into methodological practices in this newer area

Our analysis suggests that many papers reporting syntheses of qualitative research lack explicit description of at least some methods.

Many do not explain how they identified their sample, whether or how they appraised included papers, or how appraisal judgments were accounted for in the synthesis.

Many papers in our review offered no defense of their lack of explicitness in describing their techniques of searching; nearly 40 percent did not describe how the studies were identified at all

Many did not explain whether they were aiming for comprehensiveness or were using some form of sampling strategy.