Cited by 39Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsDelphi Technique in Research

A systematic review and critical appraisal of qualitative metasynthetic practice in public health to develop a taxonomy of operations of reciprocal translation

Melendez‐Torres, G. J., Grant, Sean, Bonell, Chris·2015·Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Reciprocal translation, the understanding of one study's findings in terms of another's, is the foundation of most qualitative metasynthetic methods. In light of the proliferation of metasynthesis methods, the current review sought to create a taxonomy of operations of reciprocal translation using recently published qualitative metasyntheses. METHODS: On 19 August 2013, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched. Included articles were full reports of metasyntheses of qualitative studies published in 2012 in English-language peer-reviewed journals. Two reviewers, working independently, screened records, assessed full texts for inclusion and extracted data on methods from each included metasynthesis. Systematic review methods used were summarised, and metasynthetic methods were inductively analysed to develop the taxonomy. RESULTS: Of 61 included metasyntheses, 21 (34%) reported fully replicable search strategies and 51 (84%) critically appraised included studies. Based on methods in these metasyntheses, we developed a taxonomy of reciprocal translation with four overlapping categories: visual representation; key paper integration; data reduction and thematic extraction; and line-by-line coding. DISCUSSION: This systematic review presents an update on methods and reporting currently used in qualitative metasynthesis. It also goes beyond the proliferation of approaches to offer a parsimonious approach to understanding how reciprocal translations are accomplished across metasynthetis methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1161

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Melendez‐Torres, G. J., Grant, S., & Bonell, C.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Evidence‐Based Intervention University of Oxford Oxford UK
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07-28
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
357-371
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
OpenAlex
W1514662432
Cited by
39
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
qualitative meta-synthesis, visual representation, public health research
MeSH terms
Classification, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Public Health Practice, Qualitative Research, Translational Research, Biomedical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review