SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Barbour R.S. & Barbour M. (2003) Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 9, 179186.
  • Bazerman C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
  • Bushman B.J. & Wells G.L. (2001) Narrative impressions of literature: the availability bias and the corrective properties of meta-analytic approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27, 11231130.
  • Campbell R., Pound P., Pope C., Britten N., Pill R., Morgan M. & Donovan J. (2003) Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social Science & Medicine 56, 671684.
  • Downe S., Simpson L. & Trafford K. (2006) Expert intrapartum care: a meta-synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 57, 127140.
  • Duedahl T.H., Romsing J., Moiniche S. & Dahl J.B. (2006) A qualitative systematic review of peri-operative pain. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 50, 113.
  • Ezzo J., Bausell B., Moerman D.E., Berman B. & Hadhazy V. (2001) Reviewing the reviews: how strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 17, 457466.
  • Fetterley J. (1978) The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
  • Gebel K., Bauman A.E. & Petticrew M. (2007) The physical environment and physical activity: a critical appraisal of review articles. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32, 361369.
  • Greenhalgh T., Robert G., Macfarlane F., Bate P., Kyriakidou O. & Peacock R. (2005) Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine 61, 417430.
  • Hammersley M. (2001) On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: a ‘narrative’ response to Evans & Benefield. British Educational Research Journal 27, 543554.
  • Harden A., Garcia J., Oliver S., Rees R., Shepherd J., Brunton G. & Oakley A. (2004) Applying systematic review methods to studies of people’s views: an example from public health research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 58, 794800.
  • Harrison L.L. (1996) Putting it all together: the importance of integrative research reviews and meta-analyses in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 24, 224225 (editorial).
  • Higgins J.P.T. & Green S. (eds) (2006) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Retrieved from http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/Handbook4.2.6Sep2006.pdf on 13 July 2007.
  • Lang A., Edwards N. & Fleiszer A. (2007) Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60, 595597.
  • Lather P. (1999) To be of use: the work of reviewing. Review of Educational Research 69, 27.
  • Latour B. & Woolgar S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  • Law J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge, London.
  • Linde K. & Willich S.N. (2003) How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96, 1722.
  • MacLure M. (2005) ‘Clarity bordering on stupidity’: where’s the quality in systematic review? Journal of Education Policy 20, 393416.
  • Maxwell J.A. (2006) Literature reviews of, and for, educational research: a commentary on Boote and Beile’s ‘scholars before researchers’. Educational Researcher 35, 2831.
  • Moreira T. (2007) Entangled evidence: knowledge making in systematic reviews in healthcare. Sociology of Health & Illness 29, 180197.
  • Mykhalovskiy E. (2003) Evidence-based medicine: ambivalent reading and the clinical recontextualization of science. Health 7, 331352.
  • Noblit G.W. & Hare R.D. (1988) Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
  • Ogilvie D., Egan M., Hamilton V. & Petticrew M. (2005) Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. best available evidence: how low should you go? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59, 886892.
  • Paterson B.L., Thorne S.E., Canam C. & Jillings C. (2001) Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research: A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  • Pawson R. (2006) Digging for nuggets: how ‘bad’ research can yield ‘good’ evidence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 9, 127142.
  • Retsas A. (2000) Barriers to using research evidence in nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing 31, 599606.
  • Sandelowski M. (2003) Tables or tableaux? Writing and reading mixed methods studies. In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (TashakkoriA. & TeddlieC., eds). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 321350.
  • Sandelowski M. (2004) Using qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 14, 13661386.
  • Sandelowski M. & Barroso J. (2007) Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Springer, New York.
  • Sandelowski M., Barroso J. & Voils C.I. (2007a) Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Research in Nursing & Health 30, 99111.
  • Sandelowski M., Voils C.I. & Barroso J. (2007b) Comparability work and the management of difference in research synthesis studies. Social Science & Medicine 64, 236247.
  • Traynor M. (1999) The problem of dissemination: evidence and ideology. Nursing Inquiry 6, 187197.
  • Voils C.I., Sandelowski M., Barroso J. & Hasselblad V. (2008). Making sense of qualitative and quantitative findings in mixed research synthesis studies. Field Methods 20, 325.
  • West S., King V., Carey T.S., Lohr K.N., McKoy N. & Sutton S.F. et al. (2002) Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47. AHRQ Pub. No. 02-E016. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.