(^100) Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Model and Guidelines, Third Edition
Systematic reviews differ from more traditional narrative literature reviews. Nar-
rative reviews often contain references to research studies but do not critically
appraise, evaluate, and summarize the relative merits of the included studies. True
systematic reviews address both the strengths and limitations of each study in-
cluded in the review. Readers should not differentiate between a systematic review
and a narrative literature review based solely on the title of the article. At times,
the title will state that the article presents a literature review when it is in fact a
systematic review or state that the article is a systematic review when it is a lit-
erature review. EBP teams generally consider themselves lucky when they uncover
well-executed systematic reviews that include summative research techniques that
apply to the practice question of interest. Table 6.1 outlines the defining features
of systematic reviews and reviews that include meta-analysis or meta-synthesis.
Table 6.1 Defining Features of Summative Research Techniques
Summative Evidence Description Defining Features
Systematic review Review of research
evidence related to
a specific clinical
question
■■Employs comprehensive,
reproducible search strategies and
rigorous appraisal methods
■■Can include experimental and non-
experimental research studies
Meta-analysis Research technique
that synthesizes and
analyzes quantitative
scientific evidence
■■Uses statistical procedures to
combine results from independent
primary studies
■■Usually includes experimental and/
or quasi-experimental studies
■■Estimates overall effect size of a
specific intervention or variable on
a defined outcome
Meta-synthesis Research technique
that synthesizes and
analyzes qualitative
scientific evidence
■■Limited to qualitative studies
■■Identification of key metaphors and
concepts
■■Interprets and translates findings
vip2019
(vip2019)
#1