Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based healthcare focuses on the need to use interventions that are supported by the best available and most up-to-date evidence or knowledge. Many clinical questions cannot be fully answered by evidence derived from quantitative or qualitative research designs alone, since many areas in healthcare are supported by clinicians' tacit knowledge derived from their clinical experiences. In this situation, evidence generated from a systematic review of text and opinion may be required as the best available evidence. The aim of this study is to highlight the importance and role of expert opinion synthesis in healthcare, and present results of an international methodological group review. METHODS: A methodological group was formed to review this approach, and update the guidance and processes for undertaking a systematic review of text and opinion. RESULTS: The methodology of systematic reviews of text and opinion had already been developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We reviewed and updated several steps in the process, such as inclusion criteria, search strategy, critical appraisal and data extraction. CONCLUSIONS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for the systematic review of text and opinion is unique, and continuously evolving and being further developed. Systematic reviews of text and opinion may be considered as legitimate sources of evidence, especially when there is an absence of other research designs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The analysis and insights regarding barriers and facilitators in the discussion section of each article were critically appraised using three JBI Text and Opinion questions; all articles met all three criteria.
“As an additional step, the analysis and insights regarding barriers and facilitators in the discussion section of each article was also critically appraised using the three most relevant questions from the JBI’s “Text and Opinion” critical appraisal tool (i.e., “Is the source of the opinion clearly identified?”; “Is the stated position the result of an analytical process, and is there logic in the”
In the absence of research studies, the use of a transparent systematic process to identify the best available evidence drawn from text and opinion can provide practical guidance to practitioners and policy makers.
“However, in the absence of research studies, the use of a transparent systematic process to identify the best available evidence drawn from text and opinion can provide practical guidance to practitioners and policy makers [18].”
From What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018) · cites this paper as [18]
Cites
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769 · see citing works
Yeh, M. (2014) · Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/jnr.0000000000000065 · Cited by 3,836 · see citing works
Andrews, J. C., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Pottie, K. C., Meerpohl, J. J., Alonso‐Coello, P., Rind, D. M., Montori, V. M., Brito, J. P., Norris, S. L., et al. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003 · Cited by 1,332 · see citing works
Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach.
Munn, Z., Porritt, K., Lockwood, C., Aromataris, E., & Pearson, A. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-108 · Cited by 803 · see citing works
The Narrative Nature of Clinical Reasoning
Mattingly, C. (1991) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.45.11.998 · Cited by 319 · cited 1× · see citing works
“(1) Types of text (2) Those represented (3) Stated allegiance / position (4) Setting (5) Geographical context (6) Cultural context (7) Logic of argument (8) Author’s conclusions (9) Reviewer’s comments”
BackgroundIntegrating evidence into clinical practice: an alternative to evidence‐based approaches
Tonelli, M. R. (2006) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2004.00551.x · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Evidence-Based Medicine and Practice Guidelines: An Overview
Woolf, S. H. (2000) · Cancer Control · doi:10.1177/107327480000700411 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Glove utilization in the prevention of cross transmission: a systematic review
Picheansathian, W., & Chotibang, J. (2015) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1817 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Storytelling and Narrative Knowing: An Examination of the Epistemic Benefits of Well-Told Stories
Worth, S. E. (2008) · Journal of Aesthetic Education · doi:10.2307/25160289 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Konno, R., Stern, C., & Gibb, H. (2013) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2013-607 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
McArthur, A., & Lockwood, C. S. (2013) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/01938924-201311040-00003 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 · Cited by 1,164 · see citing works
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/hir.12276 · Cited by 570 · see citing works
Resilience and mental health nursing: An integrative review of international literature
Foster, K., Roche, M., Delgado, C., Cuzzillo, C., Giandinoto, J., & Furness, T. (2019) · International Journal of Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/inm.12548 · Cited by 293 · see citing works
Le, P. D., Eschliman, E. L., Grivel, M. M., Tang, J., Cho, Y. G., Yang, X., Tay, C., Li, T., Bass, J., & Yang, L. H. (2022) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01179-z · Cited by 233 · see citing works
“, “Is the source of the opinion clearly identified?”; “Is the stated position the result of an analytical process, and is there logic in the opinion expressed?”; and “Is any incongruence with the literature/ sources logically defended?”) [46].”
BackgroundGreen, H., Fernandez, R., & MacPhail, C. (2021) · Public Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/phn.12959 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Afferri, A., Allen, H., Booth, A., Dierickx, S., Pacey, A., & Balen, J. (2022) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmab040 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
O'Brien, M., Hirschtritt, M. E., Tahir, P., & Kalapatapu, R. K. (2023) · JACEP Open · doi:10.1002/emp2.13018 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Lamberti, G., Giraudo, D., Ciardi, G., & Levis, J. K. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15031116 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“- JBI Checklist for Text and Opinion [32] for expert opinion papers.”
- Authors
- McArthur, A., Klugárová, J., Yan, H., & Florescu, S.
- Affiliations
- Fudan University (CN)
- Venue
- International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 188-195
- ISSN
- 1744-1595 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-1609
- OpenAlex
- W2426693543
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 0.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- evidence-based care, Joanna Briggs Institute, methodological recommendations, critical appraisal, data extraction, search strategies, inclusion criteria
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Qualitative Research
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
