↓ 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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
685 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 685 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%
Czechia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 648 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 148 22%
Student > Master 128 19%
Researcher 101 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 43 6%
Other 33 5%
Other 146 21%
Unknown 86 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 146 21%
Social Sciences 127 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 91 13%
Psychology 48 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 32 5%
Other 131 19%
Unknown 110 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,433,530
of 17,854,173 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#423
of 1,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,831
of 135,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,854,173 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 135,970 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them