Five common pitfalls in mixed methods systematic reviews: lessons learned

TY - JOUR

T1 - Five common pitfalls in mixed methods systematic reviews

T2 - lessons learned

AU - Lizarondo, Lucylynn

AU - Stern, Cindy

AU - Apostolo, Joao

AU - Carrier, Judith

AU - de Borges, Kelli

AU - Godfrey, Christina

AU - Kirkpatrick, Pamela

AU - Pollock, Danielle

AU - Rieger, Kendra

AU - Salmond, Susan

AU - Vandyk, Amanda

AU - Loveday, Heather

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2022/8

Y1 - 2022/8

N2 - Objectives: Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs) combine quantitative and qualitative evidence within a single review. Since the revision of the JBI methodology for MMSRs in 2020, there has been an increasing number of reviews published that claim to follow this approach. A preliminary examination of these indicated that authors frequently deviated from the methodology. This article outlines five common ‘pitfalls’ associated with undertaking MMSR and provides direction for future reviewers attempting MMSR. Methods: Forward citation tracking identified 17 reviews published since the revision of the JBI mixed methods methodological guidance. Methods used in these reviews were then examined against the JBI methodology to identify deviations. Results: The issues identified related to the rationale for choosing the methodological approach, an incorrect synthesis and integration approach chosen to answer the review question/s posed, the exclusion of primary mixed methods studies in the review, the lack of detail regarding the process of data transformation, and a lack of ‘mixing’ of the quantitative and qualitative components. Conclusion: This exercise was undertaken to assist systematic reviewers considering conducting an MMSR and MMSR users to identify potential areas where authors tend to deviate from the methodological approach. Based on these findings a series of recommendations are provided.

AB - Objectives: Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs) combine quantitative and qualitative evidence within a single review. Since the revision of the JBI methodology for MMSRs in 2020, there has been an increasing number of reviews published that claim to follow this approach. A preliminary examination of these indicated that authors frequently deviated from the methodology. This article outlines five common ‘pitfalls’ associated with undertaking MMSR and provides direction for future reviewers attempting MMSR. Methods: Forward citation tracking identified 17 reviews published since the revision of the JBI mixed methods methodological guidance. Methods used in these reviews were then examined against the JBI methodology to identify deviations. Results: The issues identified related to the rationale for choosing the methodological approach, an incorrect synthesis and integration approach chosen to answer the review question/s posed, the exclusion of primary mixed methods studies in the review, the lack of detail regarding the process of data transformation, and a lack of ‘mixing’ of the quantitative and qualitative components. Conclusion: This exercise was undertaken to assist systematic reviewers considering conducting an MMSR and MMSR users to identify potential areas where authors tend to deviate from the methodological approach. Based on these findings a series of recommendations are provided.

KW - Evidence synthesis

KW - Mixed methods research

KW - Mixed methods review methodology

KW - Mixed methods systematic review

KW - Research methodology

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130368995&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85130368995&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.014

DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 35341946

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 148

SP - 178

EP - 183

JO - Journal of clinical epidemiology

JF - Journal of clinical epidemiology

ER -