Article type
Abstract
"Background: Qualitization is poorly understood in the context of MMSRs and there appears to be confusion regarding how to undertake this process. JBI provides methodological guidance for different types of evidence syntheses including MMSRs. In order to advance the methodology, there was a need for JBI to expand on its current guidance and provide more practical advice to reviewers.
Objectives: To present on what qualitization is and when, and how to undertake it in convergent integrated MMSRs.
Methods: The JBI MMSR Methodology Group took a multi-pronged approach to update its guidance. A structured search of the literature was conducted followed by analysis of a sample of systematic reviews that claimed to use the JBI convergent integrated approach to MMSRs. A discussion paper was then generated and revised following a series of online meetings as well as presentation of the proposed guidance to evidence synthesis experts at an international conference. The guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee.
Results: In convergent integrated MMSRs, the updated JBI methodological guidance recommends that data extraction for quantitative studies (or mixed method studies) stays as close as possible to the data reported in the primary studies. Where this is absent (or insufficient to meet the needs of the MMSR), systematic reviewers may need to construct the narrative representation using other relevant data from the primary studies. Following data extraction, the process of integration occurs where extracted data (both quantitative and qualitative) are assembled and reviewers are required to conduct detailed examination across data to identify likenesses and thus create categories based on similarities in meaning. This process of grouping or coding data into categories represents data transformation in the form of qualitization.
Conclusions: To our knowledge, this guidance is the most comprehensive currently available for data transformation in MMSR, particularly the process of qualitization. It is important to acknowledge the inherent variability in MMSRs, and that our methodology may not capture every possible scenario that can occur in this type of review. This is of relevance to patients as it contributes to providing more robust methods in evidence synthesis."
Objectives: To present on what qualitization is and when, and how to undertake it in convergent integrated MMSRs.
Methods: The JBI MMSR Methodology Group took a multi-pronged approach to update its guidance. A structured search of the literature was conducted followed by analysis of a sample of systematic reviews that claimed to use the JBI convergent integrated approach to MMSRs. A discussion paper was then generated and revised following a series of online meetings as well as presentation of the proposed guidance to evidence synthesis experts at an international conference. The guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee.
Results: In convergent integrated MMSRs, the updated JBI methodological guidance recommends that data extraction for quantitative studies (or mixed method studies) stays as close as possible to the data reported in the primary studies. Where this is absent (or insufficient to meet the needs of the MMSR), systematic reviewers may need to construct the narrative representation using other relevant data from the primary studies. Following data extraction, the process of integration occurs where extracted data (both quantitative and qualitative) are assembled and reviewers are required to conduct detailed examination across data to identify likenesses and thus create categories based on similarities in meaning. This process of grouping or coding data into categories represents data transformation in the form of qualitization.
Conclusions: To our knowledge, this guidance is the most comprehensive currently available for data transformation in MMSR, particularly the process of qualitization. It is important to acknowledge the inherent variability in MMSRs, and that our methodology may not capture every possible scenario that can occur in this type of review. This is of relevance to patients as it contributes to providing more robust methods in evidence synthesis."