Designing, planning, and conducting systematic reviews and other knowledge syntheses: Six key practical recommendations to improve feasibility and efficiency

Abstract

Background: Knowledge syntheses, such as systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and realist reviews, are crucial tools to guide nursing practice, policy, and research.However, conducting high-quality knowledge syntheses is a complex and timeconsuming endeavor. It is imperative for nursing students, clinicians, and researchers to be aware of key practical recommendations regarding the conduct of knowledge syntheses to improve the feasibility and efficiency of such projects. Aim:The aim of this paper was to discuss key practical recommendations for designing, planning, and conducting knowledge syntheses relevant to nursing policy, practice, and research. Methods: The recommendations discussed are based on best-practice guidance about knowledge synthesis methodology proposed by The Campbell Collaboration (Campbell systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines, 2020), Cochrane (Cochrane training, 2019), and the Joanna Briggs Institute (The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual, 2020) and on strategies used by the authors to improve the feasibility and efficiency of knowledge syntheses. Results: This paper highlights six key practical recommendations that nursing students, clinicians, and researchers should take into account when deciding to embark on a knowledge synthesis project: (1) determining if (and why) knowledge synthesis should be conducted; (2) selecting the appropriate type of knowledge synthesis, as well as the associated methodological guidance and reporting standards; (3) developing a search strategy that balances sensitivity and specificity; (4) writing a protocol and obtaining feedback; (5) determining the resources required to conduct the different stages of the knowledge synthesis; and (6) keeping an audit trail. Fifteen common types of knowledge synthesis are presented with their definitions, relevant methodological guidance, and reporting standards.Linking evidence to action: The recommendations discussed, used in conjunction with appropriate methodological guidelines, may help ensure the success of a knowledge

Commentary to Skudlik et al. (2023): why a scoping review and why only Germany?

“…This is an additional argument in relation to the questionable decision to have limited the review to Germany. As a result, we have only a partial picture of the phenomenon under study which affects the transferability of the results [ 8 , 9 ]. Although the description of the healthcare system in Germany helped the reader to understand the target setting, being from another country, we found it insufficient to ensure transferability to other contexts [ 9 ].…”

“…This limits the usefulness of the results to the international scientific community which would have benefited from a broader knowledge synthesis on such an important topic. If this decision was influenced by limited time, resources, or lack of planning, this should be mentioned [ 8 ].…”

“…As the article by Fontaine et al (2022) indicates [8], the first step in deciding why to conduct a knowledge synthesis, such as a scoping review, is to acknowledge if it is required and for what scientific reasons. Hence, a stronger justification of the identified knowledge gap should have been presented in the light of current scientific knowledge.…”