Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 64, Issue 1 , Pages 11-20, January 2011

The art and science of knowledge synthesis

  • Andrea C. Tricco

      Affiliations

    • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • ,
  • Jennifer Tetzlaff

      Affiliations

    • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • Department of Epidemiology & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • ,
  • David Moher

      Affiliations

    • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • Department of Epidemiology & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. +Tel.: 613-738-3591; fax: 613-739-6266.

Accepted 25 November 2009. published online 02 March 2010.

Abstract 

Objectives

To review methods for completing knowledge synthesis.

Study Design and Setting

We discuss how to complete a broad range of knowledge syntheses. Our article is intended as an introductory guide.

Results

Many groups worldwide conduct knowledge syntheses, and some methods are applicable to most reviews. However, variations of these methods are apparent for different types of reviews, such as realist reviews and mixed-model reviews. Review validity is dependent on the validity of the included primary studies and the review process itself. Steps should be taken to avoid bias in the conduct of knowledge synthesis. Transparency in reporting will help readers assess review validity and applicability, increasing its utility.

Conclusion

Given the magnitude of the literature, the increasing demands on knowledge syntheses teams, and the diversity of approaches, continuing efforts will be important to increase the efficiency, validity, and applicability of systematic reviews. Future research should focus on increasing the uptake of knowledge synthesis, how best to update reviews, the comparability between different types of reviews (eg, rapid vs. comprehensive reviews), and how to prioritize knowledge synthesis topics.

Keywords: Systematic reviews, Knowledge syntheses, Methods, Risk of bias, Reporting, Dissemination

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Potential competing interests: J.T., A.C.T., and D.M. are members of the Cochrane Collaboration. Parts of this article were published in the following textbook chapter: J.T., A.C.T., and D.M. Chapter 2.2 Knowledge synthesis. In: Stauss S, Tetroe J, Graham I, eds. Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving Evidence to Practice. NJ, Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2009.

 Funding: At the time of study conduct, A.C.T. was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Award, a University of Ottawa Excellence Scholarship, and a CIHR Institute of Health Services and Policy Research Rising Star Award. D.M. was funded by a University of Ottawa Research Chair. The funders had no role in any of the following activities: study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and decision to submit the report for publication.

PII: S0895-4356(09)00361-8

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 64, Issue 1 , Pages 11-20, January 2011

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution