The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis. Introduction: Evidence synthesis is a constantly evolving field. There is now a plethora of evidence synthesis approaches used across many different disciplines. Historically, there have been numerous attempts to organize the types and methods of evidence synthesis in the form of classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies. This scoping review will seek to identify all the available classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies; how they were developed; their characteristics; and the types of evidence syntheses included within them. Inclusion criteria: This scoping review will include discussion papers, commentaries, books, editorials, manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations that describe multiple approaches to evidence synthesis in any discipline. Methods: The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative will support this scoping review. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents utilizing a three-step search strategy. An exploratory search of MEDLINE has identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL with Full Text, ERIC, Scopus, Compendex, and JSTOR will be conducted. The websites of relevant evidence synthesis organizations will be searched. Identified documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers, and the data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively. Details of this review project are available at: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/qwc27
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Other innovations include a methodological quality appraisal tool for ScRs that is currently under development [30] and the teasing out of different knowledge synthesis methods (eg, systematic reviews, qualitative evidence syntheses, mixed methods reviews) to inform an evidence synthesis taxonomy [31][32][33][34].”
From Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [32]
Citations
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565
Self-citationMunn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x · Cited by 11,385
Self-citationUpdated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00167 · Cited by 9,046
Self-citationPRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 · Cited by 5,700
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
Self-citationClarifying differences between review designs and methods
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 · Cited by 1,063
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
Self-citationQualitative Metasynthesis: Reflections on Methodological Orientation and Ideological Agenda
Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G., & Sandelowski, M. (2004) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732304269888 · Cited by 749
Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt, G. J., Mozygemba, K., Refolo, P., Sacchini, D., Tummers, M., et al. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.003 · Cited by 198
Self-citationClarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2 · Cited by 115
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Pearson, 2004, Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews, JBI Reports, 2.
- Pearson, 2012, Translational science and evidence-based healthcare: a clarification and reconceptualization of how knowledge is generated and used in healthcare, Nurs Res Pract, 2012, 792519
- Aromataris, 2014, The systematic review: an overview, Am J Nurs, 114, 53, 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c · DOI · Paper page
- Liberati, 2009, The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration, BMJ, 339, b2700, 10.1136/bmj.b2700 · DOI · Paper page
- Pearson, 2005, The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare, Int J Evid Based Healthc, 3, 207
- Jordan, 2019, The updated Joanna Briggs Institute model of evidence-based healthcare, Int J Evid Based Healthc, 17, 58, 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000155 · DOI
- Colquhoun, 2014, Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting, J Clin Epidemiol, 67, 1291, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 · DOI · Paper page
- Grant, 2009, A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies, Health Info Libr J, 26, 91, 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · DOI · Paper page
- Tricco, 2011, The art and science of knowledge synthesis, J Clin Epidemiol, 64, 11, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007 · DOI
- Tricco, 2016, A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method, J Clin Epidemiol, 73, 19, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030 · DOI · Paper page
- Barnett-Page, 2009, Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review, BMC Med Res Methodol, 9.
- Littell, 2018, Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products, Campbell Syst Rev, 14, 1, 10.4073/cmdp.2018.1 · DOI
- Amog, 2022, The web-based “Right Review” tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods, J Clin Epidemiol, 147, 42, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004 · DOI
- Clark, 2020, Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial, J Med Libr Assoc, 108, 195, 10.5195/jmla.2020.834 · DOI
- Haddaway, 2021, citationchaser: an R package and Shiny app for forward and backward citations chasing in academic searching, Res Synth Medods, 13, 533, 10.1002/jrsm.1563 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review
Tricco, A. C., Robinson, E., Straus, S. E., Colquhoun, H., Godfrey, C. M., Moher, D., Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Logan, S., Elsman, E. B. M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112314 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Price, C., Aromataris, E., Stern, C., Stone, J. C., Barker, T. H., Godfrey, C. M., Clyne, B., Booth, A., Tricco, A. C., & Jordan, Z.
- Affiliations
- JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
- Albert S. Cook Library, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
- Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen’s University Kingston, ON, Canada
- Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
- Venue
- JBI Evidence Synthesis
- Published
- 2022-07-19
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 592-600
- ISSN
- 2689-8381
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 10
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.11124/jbies-22-00122
- The paper
- Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Price, C., Aromataris, E., Stern, C., Stone, J. C., Barker, T. H., Godfrey, C. M., Clyne, B., Booth, A., Tricco, A. C., & Jordan, Z. (2023). Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-22-00122
