The wiki toolkit for planning, conducting and reporting mixed studies reviews
Abstract
A mixed studies review (MSR) is a type of literature review that includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. This form of literature review is popular since it can provide a rich understanding of complex health interventions and programs. However, conducting a MSR can be challeng ing since it combines several study designs. A wiki toolkit was developed to provide MSR-specific guidance and suggest tips and tools for planning, conducting and reporting MSR. The toolkit is structured according to eight stages for conducting a systematic review: (1) formulate a review question, (2) define eligibility criteria, (3) select sources of information, (4) identify potentially relevant studies, (5) select relevant studies, (6) appraise the quality of studies, (7) extract data, and (8) synthesize included studies. The toolkit includes examples, tips for searching studies with diverse designs, existing tools for searching, selecting and appraising, synthesis designs, and a template for proposals and reports. This toolkit is presented as a wiki, which allows users to collaboratively modify the content and provides continuous updates on the science of MSR. It is hoped that this wiki toolkit will be useful to all users and contribute to creating a network of people interested in MSR.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823 · see citing works
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042 · see citing works
The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., et al. (2018) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-180221 · Cited by 4,737 · cited 1× · see citing works
“More information about one critical appraisal tool that was developed specially for use in MSR is provided in another paper of this series (Hong et al., 2018): the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (version 2018).”
Self-citationBeyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732312452938 · Cited by 2,608 · see citing works
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581960501000110 · Cited by 2,132 · see citing works
RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-21 · Cited by 1,374 · see citing works
Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440 · Cited by 1,363 · see citing works
Self-citationPluye, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., & Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009 · Cited by 1,119 · see citing works
Self-citationHong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M., & Wassef, M. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 · Cited by 754 · cited 4× · see citing works
“It includes specific recommendations for reporting MSRs.”
InfluentialSelf-citationRAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-20 · Cited by 610 · see citing works
Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential
Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2011) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step: Asking the Clinical Question
Stillwell, S. B., Fineout‐Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010) · AJN American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000368959.11129.79 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review
Spencer, A. J., & Eldredge, J. D. (2018) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.82 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Research: A Guide to Methods
Pope, C. J., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007) · ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Investigating complexity in systematic reviews of interventions by using a spectrum of methods
Anderson, L. M., Oliver, S. R., Michie, S., Rehfuess, E., Noyes, J., & Shemilt, I. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.014 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Pluye, P., Hong, Q. N., Bush, P. L., & Vedel, I. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.033 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Self-citationSystematic reviews: A brief historical overview
Hong, Q. N., & Pluye, P. (2018) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-180219 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Self-citationDiscriminating between empirical studies and nonempirical works using automated text classification
Langlois, A., Nie, J., Thomas, J., Hong, Q. N., & Pluye, P. (2018) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1317 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Self-citationPerformance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews
Sherif, R. E., Pluye, P., Gore, G. C., Granikov, V., & Hong, Q. N. (2016) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.007 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationInformation sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews
Hanneke, R., & Young, S. K. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0543-2 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., et al. (2018) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-180221 · Cited by 4,737 · see citing works
Self-citationSystematic reviews: A brief historical overview
Hong, Q. N., & Pluye, P. (2018) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-180219 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Self-citationOnline peer support communities in the infertility journey: A systematic mixed-studies review
Lin, J. W., & Shorey, S. (2023) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104454 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Stockwell‐Smith, G., Adeleye, A. O., Chaboyer, W. P., Cooke, M. L., Phelan, M., Todd, J., & Grealish, L. A. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.15383 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Dittborn, M., Portales, B., & Brierley, J. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057867 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Vpliv terapije z lutko na življenje oseb, obolelih za demenco
Reljić, N. M., Fekonja, Z., Mulej, J., Kmetec, S., & Pajnkihar, M. (2019) · Slovenian Nursing Review · doi:10.14528/snr.2019.53.3.2974 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Sherif, R. E., Langlois, A., Pandu, X., Nie, J., Thomas, J., Hong, Q. N., & Pluye, P. (2020) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-190347 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationHonoring the Legacy of Pierre Pluye
Hong, Q. N., Granikov, V., Sherif, R. E., Bush, P. L., Bujold, M., Reyes, A. G., & Ruchon, C. (2023) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/15586898231216519 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationZahedi, S., Tellier, P., Luconi, F., Gore, G. C., & Rodríguez, C. (2025) · Journal of Primary Care & Community Health · doi:10.1177/21501319251356557
Simpson, D., Miller-Lewis, L. R., & O’Reilly, M. (2026) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100793
- Authors
- Pluye, P., Hong, Q. N., Granikov, V., & Vedel, I.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Pluye, Pierre
- Venue
- Education for Information
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-12-18
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 277-283
- ISSN
- 0167-8329 (ISSN-L)
- 1875-8649
- OpenAlex
- W2908120399
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Education for Information (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- review planning, study selection, study appraisal, data extraction, synthesis design, health interventions, collaborative knowledge sharing
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
