↓ Skip to main content

What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
230 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
901 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika Kastner, Andrea C Tricco, Charlene Soobiah, Erin Lillie, Laure Perrier, Tanya Horsley, Vivian Welch, Elise Cogo, Jesmin Antony, Sharon E Straus

Abstract

A knowledge synthesis attempts to summarize all pertinent studies on a specific question, can improve the understanding of inconsistencies in diverse evidence, and can identify gaps in research evidence to define future research agendas. Knowledge synthesis activities in healthcare have largely focused on systematic reviews of interventions. However, a wider range of synthesis methods has emerged in the last decade addressing different types of questions (e.g., realist synthesis to explore mediating mechanisms and moderators of interventions). Many different knowledge synthesis methods exist in the literature across multiple disciplines, but locating these, particularly for qualitative research, present challenges. There is a need for a comprehensive manual for synthesis methods (quantitative/qualitative or mixed), outlining how these methods are related, and how to match the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer a research question. The objectives of this scoping review are to: 1) conduct a systematic search of the literature for knowledge synthesis methods across multi-disciplinary fields; 2) compare and contrast the different knowledge synthesis methods; and, 3) map out the specific steps to conducting the knowledge syntheses to inform the development of a knowledge synthesis methods manual/tool.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 901 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 10 1%
United Kingdom 8 <1%
United States 5 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 864 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 170 19%
Student > Master 156 17%
Researcher 111 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 50 6%
Student > Bachelor 41 5%
Other 178 20%
Unknown 195 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 153 17%
Social Sciences 135 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 116 13%
Psychology 58 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 39 4%
Other 168 19%
Unknown 232 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2023.
All research outputs
#4,332,813
of 24,674,353 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#664
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,467
of 168,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,674,353 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.