in research synthesis

How to Synthesize Written Information from Multiple Sources

Shona McCombes

Content Manager

B.A., English Literature, University of Glasgow

Shona McCombes is the content manager at Scribbr, Netherlands.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

When you write a literature review or essay, you have to go beyond just summarizing the articles you’ve read – you need to synthesize the literature to show how it all fits together (and how your own research fits in).

Synthesizing simply means combining. Instead of summarizing the main points of each source in turn, you put together the ideas and findings of multiple sources in order to make an overall point.

At the most basic level, this involves looking for similarities and differences between your sources. Your synthesis should show the reader where the sources overlap and where they diverge.

Unsynthesized Example

Franz (2008) studied undergraduate online students. He looked at 17 females and 18 males and found that none of them liked APA. According to Franz, the evidence suggested that all students are reluctant to learn citations style. Perez (2010) also studies undergraduate students. She looked at 42 females and 50 males and found that males were significantly more inclined to use citation software ( p < .05). Findings suggest that females might graduate sooner. Goldstein (2012) looked at British undergraduates. Among a sample of 50, all females, all confident in their abilities to cite and were eager to write their dissertations.

Synthesized Example

Studies of undergraduate students reveal conflicting conclusions regarding relationships between advanced scholarly study and citation efficacy. Although Franz (2008) found that no participants enjoyed learning citation style, Goldstein (2012) determined in a larger study that all participants watched felt comfortable citing sources, suggesting that variables among participant and control group populations must be examined more closely. Although Perez (2010) expanded on Franz’s original study with a larger, more diverse sample…

Step 1: Organize your sources

After collecting the relevant literature, you’ve got a lot of information to work through, and no clear idea of how it all fits together.

Before you can start writing, you need to organize your notes in a way that allows you to see the relationships between sources.

One way to begin synthesizing the literature is to put your notes into a table. Depending on your topic and the type of literature you’re dealing with, there are a couple of different ways you can organize this.

Summary table

A summary table collates the key points of each source under consistent headings. This is a good approach if your sources tend to have a similar structure – for instance, if they’re all empirical papers.

Each row in the table lists one source, and each column identifies a specific part of the source. You can decide which headings to include based on what’s most relevant to the literature you’re dealing with.

For example, you might include columns for things like aims, methods, variables, population, sample size, and conclusion.

For each study, you briefly summarize each of these aspects. You can also include columns for your own evaluation and analysis.

The summary table gives you a quick overview of the key points of each source. This allows you to group sources by relevant similarities, as well as noticing important differences or contradictions in their findings.

Synthesis matrix

A synthesis matrix is useful when your sources are more varied in their purpose and structure – for example, when you’re dealing with books and essays making various different arguments about a topic.

Each column in the table lists one source. Each row is labeled with a specific concept, topic or theme that recurs across all or most of the sources.

Then, for each source, you summarize the main points or arguments related to the theme.

The purposes of the table is to identify the common points that connect the sources, as well as identifying points where they diverge or disagree.

Step 2: Outline your structure

Now you should have a clear overview of the main connections and differences between the sources you’ve read. Next, you need to decide how you’ll group them together and the order in which you’ll discuss them.

For shorter papers, your outline can just identify the focus of each paragraph; for longer papers, you might want to divide it into sections with headings.

There are a few different approaches you can take to help you structure your synthesis.

If your sources cover a broad time period, and you found patterns in how researchers approached the topic over time, you can organize your discussion chronologically .

That doesn’t mean you just summarize each paper in chronological order; instead, you should group articles into time periods and identify what they have in common, as well as signalling important turning points or developments in the literature.

If the literature covers various different topics, you can organize it thematically .

That means that each paragraph or section focuses on a specific theme and explains how that theme is approached in the literature.

Source Used with Permission: The Chicago School

If you’re drawing on literature from various different fields or they use a wide variety of research methods, you can organize your sources methodologically .

That means grouping together studies based on the type of research they did and discussing the findings that emerged from each method.

If your topic involves a debate between different schools of thought, you can organize it theoretically .

That means comparing the different theories that have been developed and grouping together papers based on the position or perspective they take on the topic, as well as evaluating which arguments are most convincing.

Step 3: Write paragraphs with topic sentences

What sets a synthesis apart from a summary is that it combines various sources. The easiest way to think about this is that each paragraph should discuss a few different sources, and you should be able to condense the overall point of the paragraph into one sentence.

This is called a topic sentence , and it usually appears at the start of the paragraph. The topic sentence signals what the whole paragraph is about; every sentence in the paragraph should be clearly related to it.

A topic sentence can be a simple summary of the paragraph’s content:

“Early research on [x] focused heavily on [y].”

For an effective synthesis, you can use topic sentences to link back to the previous paragraph, highlighting a point of debate or critique:

“Several scholars have pointed out the flaws in this approach.” “While recent research has attempted to address the problem, many of these studies have methodological flaws that limit their validity.”

By using topic sentences, you can ensure that your paragraphs are coherent and clearly show the connections between the articles you are discussing.

As you write your paragraphs, avoid quoting directly from sources: use your own words to explain the commonalities and differences that you found in the literature.

Don’t try to cover every single point from every single source – the key to synthesizing is to extract the most important and relevant information and combine it to give your reader an overall picture of the state of knowledge on your topic.

Step 4: Revise, edit and proofread

Like any other piece of academic writing, synthesizing literature doesn’t happen all in one go – it involves redrafting, revising, editing and proofreading your work.

Checklist for Synthesis

•   Do I introduce the paragraph with a clear, focused topic sentence?
•   Do I discuss more than one source in the paragraph?
•   Do I mention only the most relevant findings, rather than describing every part of the studies?
•   Do I discuss the similarities or differences between the sources, rather than summarizing each source in turn?
•   Do I put the findings or arguments of the sources in my own words?
•   Is the paragraph organized around a single idea?
•   Is the paragraph directly relevant to my research question or topic?
•   Is there a logical transition from this paragraph to the next one?

Further Information

How to Synthesise: a Step-by-Step Approach

Help…I”ve Been Asked to Synthesize!

Learn how to Synthesise (combine information from sources)

How to write a Psychology Essay

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Published on July 4, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Synthesizing sources involves combining the work of other scholars to provide new insights. It’s a way of integrating sources that helps situate your work in relation to existing research.

Synthesizing sources involves more than just summarizing . You must emphasize how each source contributes to current debates, highlighting points of (dis)agreement and putting the sources in conversation with each other.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field or throughout your research paper when you want to position your work in relation to existing research.

Table of contents

Example of synthesizing sources, how to synthesize sources, synthesis matrix, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about synthesizing sources.

Let’s take a look at an example where sources are not properly synthesized, and then see what can be done to improve it.

This paragraph provides no context for the information and does not explain the relationships between the sources described. It also doesn’t analyze the sources or consider gaps in existing research.

Research on the barriers to second language acquisition has primarily focused on age-related difficulties. Building on Lenneberg’s (1967) theory of a critical period of language acquisition, Johnson and Newport (1988) tested Lenneberg’s idea in the context of second language acquisition. Their research seemed to confirm that young learners acquire a second language more easily than older learners. Recent research has considered other potential barriers to language acquisition. Schepens, van Hout, and van der Slik (2022) have revealed that the difficulties of learning a second language at an older age are compounded by dissimilarity between a learner’s first language and the language they aim to acquire. Further research needs to be carried out to determine whether the difficulty faced by adult monoglot speakers is also faced by adults who acquired a second language during the “critical period.”

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

To synthesize sources, group them around a specific theme or point of contention.

As you read sources, ask:

• What questions or ideas recur? Do the sources focus on the same points, or do they look at the issue from different angles?
• How does each source relate to others? Does it confirm or challenge the findings of past research?
• Where do the sources agree or disagree?

Once you have a clear idea of how each source positions itself, put them in conversation with each other. Analyze and interpret their points of agreement and disagreement. This displays the relationships among sources and creates a sense of coherence.

Consider both implicit and explicit (dis)agreements. Whether one source specifically refutes another or just happens to come to different conclusions without specifically engaging with it, you can mention it in your synthesis either way.

Synthesize your sources using:

• Topic sentences to introduce the relationship between the sources
• Signal phrases to attribute ideas to their authors
• Transition words and phrases to link together different ideas

To more easily determine the similarities and dissimilarities among your sources, you can create a visual representation of their main ideas with a synthesis matrix . This is a tool that you can use when researching and writing your paper, not a part of the final text.

In a synthesis matrix, each column represents one source, and each row represents a common theme or idea among the sources. In the relevant rows, fill in a short summary of how the source treats each theme or topic.

This helps you to clearly see the commonalities or points of divergence among your sources. You can then synthesize these sources in your work by explaining their relationship.

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Synthesizing sources means comparing and contrasting the work of other scholars to provide new insights.

It involves analyzing and interpreting the points of agreement and disagreement among sources.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field of research or throughout your paper when you want to contribute something new to existing research.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

Topic sentences help keep your writing focused and guide the reader through your argument.

In an essay or paper , each paragraph should focus on a single idea. By stating the main idea in the topic sentence, you clarify what the paragraph is about for both yourself and your reader.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/synthesizing-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, signal phrases | definition, explanation & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to find sources | scholarly articles, books, etc., get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Literature Review Basics

• What is a Literature Review?
• Synthesizing Research
• Using Research & Synthesis Tables
• Additional Resources

Synthesis: What is it?

First, let's be perfectly clear about what synthesizing your research isn't :

• - It isn't  just summarizing the material you read
• - It isn't  generating a collection of annotations or comments (like an annotated bibliography)
• - It isn't  compiling a report on every single thing ever written in relation to your topic

When you  synthesize  your research, your job is to help your reader understand the current state of the conversation on your topic, relative to your research question.  That may include doing the following:

• - Selecting and using representative work on the topic
• - Identifying and discussing trends in published data or results
• - Identifying and explaining the impact of common features (study populations, interventions, etc.) that appear frequently in the literature
• - Explaining controversies, disputes, or central issues in the literature that are relevant to your research question
• - Identifying gaps in the literature, where more research is needed
• - Establishing the discussion to which your own research contributes and demonstrating the value of your contribution

Essentially, you're telling your reader where they are (and where you are) in the scholarly conversation about your project.

Synthesis: How do I do it?

Synthesis, step by step.

This is what you need to do  before  you write your review.

• Identify and clearly describe your research question (you may find the Formulating PICOT Questions table at  the Additional Resources tab helpful).
• Collect sources relevant to your research question.
• Organize and describe the sources you've found -- your job is to identify what  types  of sources you've collected (reviews, clinical trials, etc.), identify their  purpose  (what are they measuring, testing, or trying to discover?), determine the  level of evidence  they represent (see the Levels of Evidence table at the Additional Resources tab ), and briefly explain their  major findings . Use a Research Table to document this step.
• Study the information you've put in your Research Table and examine your collected sources, looking for  similarities  and  differences . Pay particular attention to  populations ,   methods  (especially relative to levels of evidence), and  findings .
• Analyze what you learn in (4) using a tool like a Synthesis Table. Your goal is to identify relevant themes, trends, gaps, and issues in the research.  Your literature review will collect the results of this analysis and explain them in relation to your research question.

Analysis tips

• - Sometimes, what you  don't  find in the literature is as important as what you do find -- look for questions that the existing research hasn't answered yet.
• - If any of the sources you've collected refer to or respond to each other, keep an eye on how they're related -- it may provide a clue as to whether or not study results have been successfully replicated.
• - Sorting your collected sources by level of evidence can provide valuable insight into how a particular topic has been covered, and it may help you to identify gaps worth addressing in your own work.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Using Research & Synthesis Tables >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 12:06 PM
• URL: https://usi.libguides.com/literature-review-basics

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

• 6. Synthesize
• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Reading Journal Articles
• Does it Describe a Literature Review?
• 1. Identify the Question
• 2. Review Discipline Styles
• Searching Article Databases
• Finding Full-Text of an Article
• Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• 4. Manage Your References
• 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Synthesis Visualization

Synthesis matrix example.

• 7. Write a Literature Review

• Synthesis Worksheet

About Synthesis

Approaches to Synthesis

You can sort the literature in various ways, for example:

How to Begin?

Read your sources carefully and find the main idea(s) of each source

Look for similarities in your sources – which sources are talking about the same main ideas? (for example, sources that discuss the historical background on your topic)

Use the worksheet (above) or synthesis matrix (below) to get organized

This work can be messy. Don't worry if you have to go through a few iterations of the worksheet or matrix as you work on your lit review!

Four Examples of Student Writing

In the four examples below, only ONE shows a good example of synthesis: the fourth column, or  Student D . For a web accessible version, click the link below the image.

Long description of "Four Examples of Student Writing" for web accessibility

• Download a copy of the "Four Examples of Student Writing" chart

Click on the example to view the pdf.

From Jennifer Lim

• << Previous: 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
• Next: 7. Write a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 11:48 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

1501 Kincaid Street Eugene, OR 97403 P: 541-346-3053 F: 541-346-3485

• Visit us on Facebook
• Visit us on Twitter
• Visit us on Youtube
• Visit us on Instagram
• Report a Concern
• Nondiscrimination and Title IX
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Find People

Synthesizing Research

When combining another author’s ideas with your own, we have talked about how using the can help make sure your points are being adequately argued (if you have not read our handout on the  evidence cycle,  check it out!). Synthesis takes assertions (statements that describe your claim), evidence (facts and proof from outside sources), and commentary (your connections to why the evidence supports your claim), and blends these processes together to make a cohesive paragraph.

In other words, synthesis encompasses several aspects:

• It is the process of integrating support from more than one source for one idea/argument while also identifying how sources are related to each other and to your main idea.
• It is an acknowledgment of how the source material from several sources address the same question/research topic.
• It is the identification of how important factors (assumptions, interpretations of results, theories, hypothesis, speculations, etc.) relate between separate sources.

TIP: It’s a fruit smoothie!

Think of synthesis as a fruit smoothie that you are creating in your paper. You will have unique parts and flavors in your writing that you will need to blend together to make one tasty, unified drink!

Why Synthesis is Important

• Synthesis integrates information from multiple sources, which shows that you have done the necessary research to engage with a topic more fully.
• Research involves incorporating many sources to understand and/or answer a research question, and discovering these connections between the sources helps you better analyze and understand the conversations surrounding your topic.
• Successful synthesis creates links between your ideas helping your paper “flow” and connect better.
• Synthesis prevents your papers from looking like a list of copied and pasted sources from various authors.
• Synthesis is a higher order process in writing—this is the area where you as a writer get to shine and show your audience your reasoning.

Types of Synthesis

Demonstrates how two or more sources agree with one another.

The collaborative nature of writing tutorials has been discussed by scholars like Andrea Lunsford (1991) and Stephen North (1984). In these essays, they explore the usefulness and the complexities of collaboration between tutors and students in writing center contexts.

Demonstrates how two or more sources support a main point in different ways.

While some scholars like Berlin (1987) have primarily placed their focus on the histories of large, famous universities, other scholars like Yahner and Murdick (1991) have found value in connecting their local histories to contrast or highlight trends found in bigger-name universities.

Accumulation

Demonstrates how one source builds on the idea of another.

Although North’s (1984) essay is fundamental to many writing centers today, Lunsford (1991) takes his ideas a step further by identifying different writing center models and also expanding North’s ideas on how writing centers can help students become better writers.

Demonstrates how one source discusses the effects of another source’s ideas.

While Healy (2001) notes the concerns of having primarily email appointments in writing centers, he also notes that constraints like funding, resources, and time affect how online resources are formed. For writing centers, email is the most economical and practical option for those wanting to offer online services but cannot dedicate the time or money to other online tutoring methods. As a result, in Neaderheiser and Wolfe’s (2009) reveals that of all the online options available in higher education, over 91% of institutions utilize online tutoring through email, meaning these constraints significantly affect the types of services writing centers offer.

Discussing Specific Source Ideas/Arguments

To debate with clarity and precision, you may need to incorporate a quote into your statement. Using can help you to thoroughly introduce your quotes so that they fit in to your paragraph and your argument. Remember that you need to use the to bridge between your ideas and outside source material.

Berlin, J. (1987).  Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900-1985 . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Boquet, E.H. (2001). “Our little secret”: A history of writing centers, pre- to open admissions. In R.W. Barnett & J.S. Blumner (Eds.),  The Allyn and Bacon guide to writing center theory and practice  (pp. 42-60). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Carino, P. (1995). Early writing centers: Toward a history.  The Writing Center Journal ,  15 (2), 103-15.

Healy, D. (2001). From place to space: Perceptual and administrative issues in the online writing center. In R.W. Barnett & J.S. Blumner (Eds.), T he Allyn and Bacon guide to writing center theory and practice  (pp. 541-554). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the idea of the writing center.  The Writing Center Journal ,  12 (1), 310-75.

Neaderheiser, S. & Wolfe, J. (2009). Between technological endorsement and resistance: The state of online writing centers.  The Writing Center Journal .  29 (1), 49-75.

North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center.  College English ,  45 (5), 433-446.

Yahner, W. & Murdick, W. (1991). The evolution of a writing center: 1972-1990.  Writing Center Journal ,  11 (2), 13-28.

• How it works

How to Synthesise Sources – Steps and Examples

Published by Olive Robin at October 17th, 2023 , Revised On October 17, 2023

The ability to effectively incorporate multiple sources into one’s work is not just a skill, but a necessity. Whether we are talking about research papers, articles, or even simple blog posts, synthesising sources can elevate our content to a more nuanced, comprehensive, and insightful level. But what does it truly mean to synthesise sources, and how does it differ from the commonly understood techniques of summarising and paraphrasing?

Importance of Synthesising Sources in Research and Writing

When finding sources , it is imperative to distinguish between various available information types. Secondary sources , for example, provide interpretations and analyses based on primary sources. Synthesising goes beyond the mere gathering of information. It involves the complex task of interweaving multiple sources to generate a broader and richer perspective. When we synthesise, we are not just collecting; we are connecting. 

By merging various viewpoints and data, we provide our readers with a well-rounded understanding of the topic. This approach ensures that our work is grounded in credible sources  while also adding unique insights.

Summarising, Paraphrasing, and Synthesising

At first glance, these three techniques might seem similar, but they serve distinctly different purposes:

Summarising

Synthesis is the art of blending multiple sources to create a unified narrative or argument. It is essential to use signal phrases to introduce these sources naturally, helping the reader follow the information flow. Block quotes can also be used for direct quotations, especially if they’re longer.

Paraphrasing

Here, we restate the original content using different words. While the wording changes, the essence and core meaning remain intact. This method is useful for clarifying complex ideas or for tailoring content to a specific audience.

Synthesising

Synthesis is the art of blending multiple sources to create a unified narrative or argument. It is not about echoing what others have said; it is about drawing connections, identifying patterns, and building a cohesive piece that holds its own merit.

What is Synthesising Sources?

Synthesising sources is a method used in research and writing wherein the author combines, interprets, and analyses information from various sources to generate a unified perspective, narrative, or argument. It involves a process that we can call source evaluation . It is an intricate process that goes beyond simply collecting data or quoting authors. Instead, it involves evaluating, integrating, and constructing a new narrative based on a collective understanding of all the sources under consideration.

Imagine a quilt where each piece of fabric represents a different source. Synthesising would be the act of sewing these individual pieces together in such a way that they form a beautiful, cohesive blanket. Each piece retains its uniqueness but contributes to the larger design and purpose of the quilt.

Objective of Synthesising

• Synthesising allows writers to delve deeper into topics by using a multitude of perspectives. This offers a more robust and comprehensive view than any single source could provide.
• By integrating diverse sources, authors can identify trends, consistencies, or discrepancies within a field or topic. This can lead to new insights or highlight areas needing further exploration.
• By interlinking sources, writers can add layers of complexity to their arguments, making their content more engaging and thought-provoking.
• While the sources themselves might not be new, the way in which they are combined and interpreted can lead to fresh conclusions and unique standpoints.
• Relying on a single source or a few like-minded ones can inadvertently introduce biases. Synthesising encourages the consideration of diverse viewpoints, ensuring a more balanced representation of the topic.

Why is Synthesis Important?

The art of synthesis, while a nuanced aspect of research and writing, holds unparalleled significance in constructing meaningful, in-depth content. Here is a detailed exploration of why synthesis is pivotal:

Enhancing Comprehension and Knowledge Depth

• Depth Over Breadth: While a vast amount of information exists on nearly any topic, true understanding isn’t about skimming the surface. Synthesising allows you to dive deeper, connecting various pieces of information and seeing the bigger picture.
• Clarifying Complexity: Topics, especially those in research, can be multifaceted. By merging multiple sources, we can simplify and explain intricate subjects more effectively.
• Reinforcing Concepts: By revisiting a concept from various sources and angles, the repetition, in a way, strengthens our grasp on the subject. It’s like studying from multiple textbooks; the overlap in content solidifies understanding.

Avoiding Plagiarism

• Original Thought Generation: While synthesising, you are compelled to merge ideas, compare viewpoints, and draw unique conclusions. This process naturally leads to producing original content rather than merely reproducing what one source says.
• Skilful Integration: A well-synthesised piece does not heavily rely on long, verbatim quotes. Instead, it seamlessly integrates information from various sources, duly cited, minimising the chances of unintentional plagiarism.
• Reflecting Authentic Engagement: When you synthesise, it showcases your genuine engagement with the material. It’s evident that you have not just copied content but have wrestled with the information, pondered upon it, and made it your own.

Developing a Holistic Perspective on a Topic

• Seeing the Full Spectrum: Single sources can offer a limited or biased viewpoint. Synthesis, by its nature, compels you to consult multiple sources, allowing for a more balanced and comprehensive view.
• Connecting the Dots: Life, society, and most academic subjects are interconnected. Synthesis helps recognise patterns, draw parallels, and understand how various elements interplay in the grand scheme of things.
• Elevating Critical Thinking: The act of synthesis hones your critical thinking skills. You’re constantly evaluating the validity of sources, comparing arguments, and discerning the weight of different perspectives. This makes your current work stronger and sharpens your intellect for future projects.

Steps of Synthesizing a Source

Here is a step-by-step guide on how to synthesise sources. 

Step 1: Read and Understand

Before you can synthesise sources effectively, you must first understand them individually. A strong synthesis is built upon a clear understanding of each source’s content, context, and nuances.

Tips To Ensure Comprehension

• Annotations: Make notes in the margins as you read, highlighting key points and ideas.
• Summarisation: After reading a section or an article, write a brief summary in your own words.
• Discussion: Talk about the content with peers or mentors. This can help clarify any confusion and deepen your understanding.
• Questioning: Constantly ask questions as you read. If something is unclear, revisit the content or consult supplementary materials.

Step 2: Identify Common Themes

Sources will often touch upon similar themes, even if they approach them differently. Recognising these themes can act as a foundation for synthesis.

• Mind Mapping: Visualise the interconnectedness of topics and subtopics.
• Lists: Create lists of similar ideas or arguments from different sources.
• Highlighting: Use colour codes to highlight recurring themes across different documents.

Step 3: Analyse and Compare

Different sources might have diverging opinions or findings. Recognising these differences is crucial to produce a balanced synthesis.

• Side-by-Side Analysis: Put the information from various sources next to each other to see how they align or diverge.
• Critical Evaluation: Ask yourself why sources might have different perspectives. Consider the methodology, context, or biases that could contribute.

Determining the Relevance of Each Source

Not all sources will hold equal weight or relevance in your synthesis.

• Criteria Checklist: Establish criteria for relevance (e.g., publication date, author credentials) and evaluate each source against this.
• Priority Setting: Decide which sources offer primary insights and which offer supplementary information.

Step 4: Organise Information

A clear structure is essential to guide your readers through the synthesised narrative.

• Outlines: Create a traditional outline that sequences your main points and supports them with subpoints from your sources.
• Flowcharts: For more complex topics, flowcharts can visually demonstrate the progression of ideas and their interconnections.

Step 5: Craft Your Narrative

This step involves the actual writing, where you combine the insights, evidence, and analysis into a singular narrative.

• Transitional Phrasing: Use transitions to move between ideas and sources smoothly.
• Voice Consistency: Even though you integrate multiple sources, ensure that the narrative maintains a consistent voice and tone.

Step 6: Cite Appropriately

Always credit original authors and sources to maintain integrity in your work and avoid plagiarism. Knowing how to cite sources is crucial in this process.

• In-text Citations: Whenever you refer to, paraphrase, or quote a source, provide a citation.

Different Citation Styles and Choosing The Right One

There are multiple citation styles (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago), and your choice will often depend on your discipline or the preference of your institution or publication.

• Guideline Review: Familiarise yourself with the preferred citation style’s guidelines.

Citation Tools: Consider using tools like Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote to help streamline and manage your citations.

The research done by our experts have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• Authentic Sources

Examples of Source Synthesis

Let’s explore some examples of synthesising sources. 

Example 1: Synthesising sources on climate change

Scenario: You have sources that discuss the causes of climate change. Some sources argue for anthropogenic (human-caused) factors, while others emphasise natural cycles.

Synthesis Approach

• Begin with an overview of climate change, its impacts, and its significance.
• Introduce the anthropogenic viewpoint, citing research on the rise of CO2 from industrial processes, deforestation, etc.
• Present the natural cycle perspective, highlighting periods in Earth’s history where temperature fluctuations were observed.
• Discuss overlaps, such as how human activities might exacerbate natural cycles.
• Conclude by emphasising the consensus in the scientific community about human contributions to recent climate change, but acknowledge the existence of natural cycles as part of Earth’s climate history.

Example 2: Merging Historical Texts on a Particular Event

Scenario: You are examining the Battle of Waterloo from British, French, and Prussian primary sources.

• Provide background on the Battle of Waterloo, setting the stage.
• Introduce the British perspective, detailing their strategies, key figures, and their account of the battle’s progression.
• Shift to the French viewpoint, noting their strategic decisions, challenges, and Napoleon’s role.
• Explore the Prussian account, emphasising their contributions and coordination with the British.
• Highlight areas of agreement among the sources (e.g., timeline of events) and areas of discrepancy or unique insights (e.g., differing reasons for the outcome).
• Conclude with a comprehensive view of the battle, incorporating insights from all perspectives and its significance in European history.

Example 3: Synthesising Qualitative And Quantitative Research On A Social Issue

Scenario: You are researching the effects of remote learning on student performance and well-being during the pandemic.

• Start with an introduction to the sudden shift to remote learning due to COVID-19.
• Present quantitative data: statistics showcasing the drop or rise in student grades, attendance rates, and standardised test scores.
• Introduce qualitative insights, like interviews or case studies, highlighting student sentiments, challenges faced at home, or feelings of isolation.
• Discuss the interplay between numbers and narratives. For instance, a drop in grades (quantitative) could be related to a lack of motivation or home distractions (qualitative).
• Compare outcomes across different demographics, using both types of data to show how remote learning might affect diverse student populations differently.
• Conclude with a holistic understanding of the impacts of remote learning, noting areas that need further research or intervention.

Common Mistakes to Avoid when Synthesising Sources

• Relying heavily on a single source limits the depth and breadth of your understanding. It may also inadvertently introduce bias if that source isn’t comprehensive or neutral.
• How to Avoid: Ensure you consult various sources for a well-rounded view. This includes both primary and secondary sources, academic articles, and more accessible pieces like news articles or blogs, if relevant.
• Every source comes with its own perspective. Identifying these biases can lead to a skewed understanding of your topic.
• How to Avoid: Critical reading is key. Always consider who the author is, their potential motivations, the context in which they’re writing, and the methodologies they use.
• Simply presenting what each source says without drawing connections or highlighting contrasts misses the essence of synthesis.
• How to Avoid: As you research, actively look for common themes, conflicting viewpoints, and unique insights. Your goal is to weave a narrative that reflects a comprehensive understanding of all these elements.

Tools and Resources for Synthesising Sources

These are the different tools that can be used for synthesising sources. 

Citation Tools

Managing references can be cumbersome, especially when dealing with numerous sources. Citation tools can help organise, format, and insert citations with ease.

• Zotero: A free, open-source tool that helps you collect, organise, cite, and share research.
• Mendeley: A reference manager and academic social network that can help you organise your research, collaborate with others online, and discover the latest developments.

Mind-Mapping Software or Apps

Mind mapping helps visually organise and interlink ideas, making the synthesis process more intuitive.

• MindMeister: An online mind-mapping tool that lets you capture, develop, and share ideas visually.
• XMind: A popular mind mapping and brainstorming software with various templates to help structure your thoughts.

Note-Taking Apps and Strategies

Effective note-taking is fundamental to understanding and organising information from various sources. Digital note-taking apps often offer features like tagging, search functionalities, and integration with other tools.

• Evernote: A cross-platform app designed for note-taking, organising, and archiving.
• Microsoft OneNote: A digital notebook that allows you to gather drawings, handwritten or typed notes, and save web clippings.
• Cornell Note-taking System: A structured method of note-taking that divides the paper into sections, encouraging active engagement with the material.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a comprehensive survey of existing research on a particular topic, synthesising findings to provide an overview of key concepts, debates, and gaps in knowledge. It establishes a foundation for new research, highlighting relevant studies and contextualising them within the broader academic conversation.

How to synthesise a source?

To synthesise a source, thoroughly understand its content, and then integrate its insights with information from other sources. This involves comparing and contrasting viewpoints, identifying patterns, and constructing a cohesive narrative or argument that offers a broader perspective rather than merely echoing the original source’s content.

Why do I need to cite sources?

Citing sources acknowledges original authors, maintains academic integrity, and provides readers with a reference for verification. It prevents plagiarism by giving credit to the ideas and research of others, allowing readers to trace the evolution of thought and confirm the reliability and accuracy of the presented information.

What are topic sentences?

Topic sentences are the main statements that introduce and summarise a paragraph’s main idea or focus. They provide context and direction, helping readers follow the writer’s argument or narrative. Typically placed at the beginning of a paragraph, they act as signposts, guiding the flow of the discussion.

You May Also Like

In any form of written communication, be it academic writing, journalism, or even casual blogging, there comes a time when we need to reference another’s words to support, explain, or emphasise our points.

In today’s information age, where vast amounts of knowledge are easily accessible, it is crucial to know how to use and represent that knowledge correctly and how to cite sources properly.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Published: 08 March 2018

Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis

• Jessica Gurevitch 1 ,
• Julia Koricheva 2 ,
• Shinichi Nakagawa 3 , 4 &
• Gavin Stewart 5  

Nature volume  555 ,  pages 175–182 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

57k Accesses

927 Citations

735 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Biodiversity
• Outcomes research

Meta-analysis is the quantitative, scientific synthesis of research results. Since the term and modern approaches to research synthesis were first introduced in the 1970s, meta-analysis has had a revolutionary effect in many scientific fields, helping to establish evidence-based practice and to resolve seemingly contradictory research outcomes. At the same time, its implementation has engendered criticism and controversy, in some cases general and others specific to particular disciplines. Here we take the opportunity provided by the recent fortieth anniversary of meta-analysis to reflect on the accomplishments, limitations, recent advances and directions for future developments in the field of research synthesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

The past, present and future of Registered Reports

Raiders of the lost HARK: a reproducible inference framework for big data science

Jennions, M. D ., Lortie, C. J. & Koricheva, J. in The Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J . et al.) Ch. 23 , 364–380 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013)

Article   Google Scholar  

Roberts, P. D ., Stewart, G. B. & Pullin, A. S. Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biol. Conserv. 132 , 409–423 (2006)

Bastian, H ., Glasziou, P . & Chalmers, I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 7 , e1000326 (2010)

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Borman, G. D. & Grigg, J. A. in The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis 2nd edn (eds Cooper, H. M . et al.) 497–519 (Russell Sage Foundation, 2009)

Ioannidis, J. P. A. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 94 , 485–514 (2016)

Koricheva, J . & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102 , 828–844 (2014)

Littell, J. H . & Shlonsky, A. Making sense of meta-analysis: a critique of “effectiveness of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy”. Clin. Soc. Work J. 39 , 340–346 (2011)

Morrissey, M. B. Meta-analysis of magnitudes, differences and variation in evolutionary parameters. J. Evol. Biol. 29 , 1882–1904 (2016)

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Whittaker, R. J. Meta-analyses and mega-mistakes: calling time on meta-analysis of the species richness-productivity relationship. Ecology 91 , 2522–2533 (2010)

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Begley, C. G . & Ellis, L. M. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483 , 531–533 (2012); clarification 485 , 41 (2012)

Article   CAS   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hillebrand, H . & Cardinale, B. J. A critique for meta-analyses and the productivity-diversity relationship. Ecology 91 , 2545–2549 (2010)

Moher, D . et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6 , e1000097 (2009). This paper provides a consensus regarding the reporting requirements for medical meta-analysis and has been highly influential in ensuring good reporting practice and standardizing language in evidence-based medicine, with further guidance for protocols, individual patient data meta-analyses and animal studies.

Moher, D . et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 4 , 1 (2015)

Nakagawa, S . & Santos, E. S. A. Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evol. Ecol. 26 , 1253–1274 (2012)

Nakagawa, S ., Noble, D. W. A ., Senior, A. M. & Lagisz, M. Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists. BMC Biol. 15 , 18 (2017)

Hedges, L. & Olkin, I. Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis (Academic Press, 1985)

Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36 , 1–48 (2010)

Anzures-Cabrera, J . & Higgins, J. P. T. Graphical displays for meta-analysis: an overview with suggestions for practice. Res. Synth. Methods 1 , 66–80 (2010)

Egger, M ., Davey Smith, G ., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315 , 629–634 (1997)

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Duval, S . & Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56 , 455–463 (2000)

Article   CAS   MATH   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Leimu, R . & Koricheva, J. Cumulative meta-analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271 , 1961–1966 (2004)

Higgins, J. P. T . & Green, S. (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions : Version 5.1.0 (Wiley, 2011). This large collaborative work provides definitive guidance for the production of systematic reviews in medicine and is of broad interest for methods development outside the medical field.

Lau, J ., Rothstein, H. R . & Stewart, G. B. in The Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J . et al.) Ch. 25 , 407–419 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013)

Lortie, C. J ., Stewart, G ., Rothstein, H. & Lau, J. How to critically read ecological meta-analyses. Res. Synth. Methods 6 , 124–133 (2015)

Murad, M. H . & Montori, V. M. Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 309 , 2217–2218 (2013)

Rasmussen, S. A ., Chu, S. Y ., Kim, S. Y ., Schmid, C. H . & Lau, J. Maternal obesity and risk of neural tube defects: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 198 , 611–619 (2008)

Littell, J. H ., Campbell, M ., Green, S . & Toews, B. Multisystemic therapy for social, emotional, and behavioral problems in youth aged 10–17. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004797.pub4 (2005)

Schmidt, F. L. What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. Am. Psychol. 47 , 1173–1181 (1992)

Button, K. S . et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14 , 365–376 (2013); erratum 14 , 451 (2013)

Parker, T. H . et al. Transparency in ecology and evolution: real problems, real solutions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31 , 711–719 (2016)

Stewart, G. Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biol. Lett. 6 , 78–81 (2010)

Sutherland, W. J ., Pullin, A. S ., Dolman, P. M . & Knight, T. M. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 , 305–308 (2004)

Lowry, E . et al. Biological invasions: a field synopsis, systematic review, and database of the literature. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 182–196 (2013)

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Parmesan, C . & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421 , 37–42 (2003)

Jennions, M. D ., Lortie, C. J . & Koricheva, J. in The Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J . et al.) Ch. 24 , 381–403 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013)

Balvanera, P . et al. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol. Lett. 9 , 1146–1156 (2006)

Cardinale, B. J . et al. Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443 , 989–992 (2006)

Rey Benayas, J. M ., Newton, A. C ., Diaz, A. & Bullock, J. M. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325 , 1121–1124 (2009)

Article   ADS   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Leimu, R ., Mutikainen, P. I. A ., Koricheva, J. & Fischer, M. How general are positive relationships between plant population size, fitness and genetic variation? J. Ecol. 94 , 942–952 (2006)

Hillebrand, H. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Am. Nat. 163 , 192–211 (2004)

Gurevitch, J. in The Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J . et al.) Ch. 19 , 313–320 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013)

Rustad, L . et al. A meta-analysis of the response of soil respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and aboveground plant growth to experimental ecosystem warming. Oecologia 126 , 543–562 (2001)

Adams, D. C. Phylogenetic meta-analysis. Evolution 62 , 567–572 (2008)

Hadfield, J. D . & Nakagawa, S. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. J. Evol. Biol. 23 , 494–508 (2010)

Lajeunesse, M. J. Meta-analysis and the comparative phylogenetic method. Am. Nat. 174 , 369–381 (2009)

Rosenberg, M. S ., Adams, D. C . & Gurevitch, J. MetaWin: Statistical Software for Meta-Analysis with Resampling Tests Version 1 (Sinauer Associates, 1997)

Wallace, B. C . et al. OpenMEE: intuitive, open-source software for meta-analysis in ecology and evolutionary biology. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8 , 941–947 (2016)

Gurevitch, J ., Morrison, J. A . & Hedges, L. V. The interaction between competition and predation: a meta-analysis of field experiments. Am. Nat. 155 , 435–453 (2000)

Adams, D. C ., Gurevitch, J . & Rosenberg, M. S. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 78 , 1277–1283 (1997)

Gurevitch, J . & Hedges, L. V. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80 , 1142–1149 (1999)

Schmid, C. H . & Mengersen, K. in The Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J . et al.) Ch. 11 , 145–173 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013)

Eysenck, H. J. Exercise in mega-silliness. Am. Psychol. 33 , 517 (1978)

Simberloff, D. Rejoinder to: Don’t calculate effect sizes; study ecological effects. Ecol. Lett. 9 , 921–922 (2006)

Cadotte, M. W ., Mehrkens, L. R . & Menge, D. N. L. Gauging the impact of meta-analysis on ecology. Evol. Ecol. 26 , 1153–1167 (2012)

Koricheva, J ., Jennions, M. D. & Lau, J. in The Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J . et al.) Ch. 15 , 237–254 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013)

Lau, J ., Ioannidis, J. P. A ., Terrin, N ., Schmid, C. H . & Olkin, I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. Br. Med. J. 333 , 597–600 (2006)

Vetter, D ., Rucker, G. & Storch, I. Meta-analysis: a need for well-defined usage in ecology and conservation biology. Ecosphere 4 , 1–24 (2013)

Mengersen, K ., Jennions, M. D. & Schmid, C. H. in The Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J. et al.) Ch. 16 , 255–283 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013)

Patsopoulos, N. A ., Analatos, A. A. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 293 , 2362–2366 (2005)

Kueffer, C . et al. Fame, glory and neglect in meta-analyses. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26 , 493–494 (2011)

Cohnstaedt, L. W. & Poland, J. Review Articles: The black-market of scientific currency. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 110 , 90 (2017)

Longo, D. L. & Drazen, J. M. Data sharing. N. Engl. J. Med. 374 , 276–277 (2016)

Gauch, H. G. Scientific Method in Practice (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003)

Science Staff. Dealing with data: introduction. Challenges and opportunities. Science 331 , 692–693 (2011)

Nosek, B. A . et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348 , 1422–1425 (2015)

Article   CAS   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Stewart, L. A . et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 313 , 1657–1665 (2015)

Saldanha, I. J . et al. Evaluating Data Abstraction Assistant, a novel software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Syst. Rev. 5 , 196 (2016)

Tipton, E. & Pustejovsky, J. E. Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 40 , 604–634 (2015)

Mengersen, K ., MacNeil, M. A . & Caley, M. J. The potential for meta-analysis to support decision analysis in ecology. Res. Synth. Methods 6 , 111–121 (2015)

Ashby, D. Bayesian statistics in medicine: a 25 year review. Stat. Med. 25 , 3589–3631 (2006)

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Senior, A. M . et al. Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses: its magnitude and implications. Ecology 97 , 3293–3299 (2016)

McAuley, L ., Pham, B ., Tugwell, P . & Moher, D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 356 , 1228–1231 (2000)

Koricheva, J ., Gurevitch, J . & Mengersen, K. (eds) The Handbook of Meta-Analysis in Ecology and Evolution (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013) This book provides the first comprehensive guide to undertaking meta-analyses in ecology and evolution and is also relevant to other fields where heterogeneity is expected, incorporating explicit consideration of the different approaches used in different domains.

Lumley, T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat. Med. 21 , 2313–2324 (2002)

Zarin, W . et al. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review. BMC Med. 15 , 3 (2017)

Elliott, J. H . et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 11 , e1001603 (2014)

Vandvik, P. O ., Brignardello-Petersen, R . & Guyatt, G. H. Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: a paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews? BMC Med. 14 , 59 (2016)

Jarvinen, A. A meta-analytic study of the effects of female age on laying date and clutch size in the Great Tit Parus major and the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca . Ibis 133 , 62–67 (1991)

Arnqvist, G. & Wooster, D. Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10 , 236–240 (1995)

Hedges, L. V ., Gurevitch, J . & Curtis, P. S. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80 , 1150–1156 (1999)

Gurevitch, J ., Curtis, P. S. & Jones, M. H. Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv. Ecol. Res 32 , 199–247 (2001)

Lajeunesse, M. J. phyloMeta: a program for phylogenetic comparative analyses with meta-analysis. Bioinformatics 27 , 2603–2604 (2011)

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pearson, K. Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. Br. Med. J. 2 , 1243–1246 (1904)

Fisher, R. A. Statistical Methods for Research Workers (Oliver and Boyd, 1925)

Yates, F. & Cochran, W. G. The analysis of groups of experiments. J. Agric. Sci. 28 , 556–580 (1938)

Cochran, W. G. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 10 , 101–129 (1954)

Smith, M. L . & Glass, G. V. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. Am. Psychol. 32 , 752–760 (1977)

Glass, G. V. Meta-analysis at middle age: a personal history. Res. Synth. Methods 6 , 221–231 (2015)

Cooper, H. M ., Hedges, L. V . & Valentine, J. C. (eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis 2nd edn (Russell Sage Foundation, 2009). This book is an important compilation that builds on the ground-breaking first edition to set the standard for best practice in meta-analysis, primarily in the social sciences but with applications to medicine and other fields.

Rosenthal, R. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research (Sage, 1991)

Hunter, J. E ., Schmidt, F. L. & Jackson, G. B. Meta-analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies (Sage, 1982)

Gurevitch, J ., Morrow, L. L ., Wallace, A . & Walsh, J. S. A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am. Nat. 140 , 539–572 (1992). This influential early ecological meta-analysis reports multiple experimental outcomes on a longstanding and controversial topic that introduced a wide range of ecologists to research synthesis methods.

O’Rourke, K. An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. J. R. Soc. Med. 100 , 579–582 (2007)

Shadish, W. R . & Lecy, J. D. The meta-analytic big bang. Res. Synth. Methods 6 , 246–264 (2015)

Glass, G. V. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ. Res. 5 , 3–8 (1976)

DerSimonian, R . & Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 7 , 177–188 (1986)

Lipsey, M. W . & Wilson, D. B. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. Confirmation from meta-analysis. Am. Psychol. 48 , 1181–1209 (1993)

Chalmers, I. & Altman, D. G. Systematic Reviews (BMJ Publishing Group, 1995)

Moher, D . et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354 , 1896–1900 (1999)

Higgins, J. P. & Thompson, S. G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21 , 1539–1558 (2002)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this Review to the memory of Ingram Olkin and William Shadish, founding members of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology who made tremendous contributions to the development of meta-analysis and research synthesis and to the supervision of generations of students. We thank L. Lagisz for help in preparing the figures. We are grateful to the Center for Open Science and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation for hosting and funding a workshop, which was the origination of this article. S.N. is supported by Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT130100268). J.G. acknowledges funding from the US National Science Foundation (ABI 1262402).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, 11794-5245, New York, USA

Jessica Gurevitch

School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX, Surrey, UK

Julia Koricheva

Evolution and Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, New South Wales, Australia

Shinichi Nakagawa

Diabetes and Metabolism Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, 2010, New South Wales, Australia

School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

Gavin Stewart

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally in designing the study and writing the manuscript, and so are listed alphabetically.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jessica Gurevitch , Julia Koricheva , Shinichi Nakagawa or Gavin Stewart .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Reviewer Information Nature thanks D. Altman, M. Lajeunesse, D. Moher and G. Romero for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

PowerPoint slides

Powerpoint slide for fig. 1, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S. et al. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 555 , 175–182 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753

Download citation

Received : 04 March 2017

Accepted : 12 January 2018

Published : 08 March 2018

Issue Date : 08 March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Accelerating evidence synthesis for safety assessment through clinicaltrials.gov platform: a feasibility study.

BMC Medical Research Methodology (2024)

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review

• Azita Shahraki-Mohammadi
• Leila Keikha
• Razieh Zahedi

Systematic Reviews (2024)

A meta-analysis on global change drivers and the risk of infectious disease

• Michael B. Mahon
• Alexandra Sack
• Jason R. Rohr

Nature (2024)

Systematic review of the uncertainty of coral reef futures under climate change

• Shannon G. Klein
• Cassandra Roch
• Carlos M. Duarte

Nature Communications (2024)

Meta-analysis reveals weak associations between reef fishes and corals

• Pooventhran Muruga
• Alexandre C. Siqueira
• David R. Bellwood

Nature Ecology & Evolution (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Literature Syntheis 101

How To Synthesise The Existing Research (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | August 2023

One of the most common mistakes that students make when writing a literature review is that they err on the side of describing the existing literature rather than providing a critical synthesis of it. In this post, we’ll unpack what exactly synthesis means and show you how to craft a strong literature synthesis using practical examples.

This post is based on our popular online course, Literature Review Bootcamp . In the course, we walk you through the full process of developing a literature review, step by step. If it’s your first time writing a literature review, you definitely want to use this link to get 50% off the course (limited-time offer).

Overview: Literature Synthesis

• What exactly does “synthesis” mean?
• Aspect 1: Agreement
• Aspect 2: Disagreement
• Aspect 3: Key theories
• Aspect 4: Contexts
• Aspect 5: Methodologies
• Bringing it all together

What does “synthesis” actually mean?

As a starting point, let’s quickly define what exactly we mean when we use the term “synthesis” within the context of a literature review.

Simply put, literature synthesis means going beyond just describing what everyone has said and found. Instead, synthesis is about bringing together all the information from various sources to present a cohesive assessment of the current state of knowledge in relation to your study’s research aims and questions .

Put another way, a good synthesis tells the reader exactly where the current research is “at” in terms of the topic you’re interested in – specifically, what’s known , what’s not , and where there’s a need for more research .

So, how do you go about doing this?

Well, there’s no “one right way” when it comes to literature synthesis, but we’ve found that it’s particularly useful to ask yourself five key questions when you’re working on your literature review. Having done so,  you can then address them more articulately within your actual write up. So, let’s take a look at each of these questions.

1. Points Of Agreement

The first question that you need to ask yourself is: “Overall, what things seem to be agreed upon by the vast majority of the literature?”

For example, if your research aim is to identify which factors contribute toward job satisfaction, you’ll need to identify which factors are broadly agreed upon and “settled” within the literature. Naturally, there may at times be some lone contrarian that has a radical viewpoint , but, provided that the vast majority of researchers are in agreement, you can put these random outliers to the side. That is, of course, unless your research aims to explore a contrarian viewpoint and there’s a clear justification for doing so. 

Identifying what’s broadly agreed upon is an essential starting point for synthesising the literature, because you generally don’t want (or need) to reinvent the wheel or run down a road investigating something that is already well established . So, addressing this question first lays a foundation of “settled” knowledge.

Need a helping hand?

2. Points Of Disagreement

Related to the previous point, but on the other end of the spectrum, is the equally important question: “Where do the disagreements lie?” .

In other words, which things are not well agreed upon by current researchers? It’s important to clarify here that by disagreement, we don’t mean that researchers are (necessarily) fighting over it – just that there are relatively mixed findings within the empirical research , with no firm consensus amongst researchers.

This is a really important question to address as these “disagreements” will often set the stage for the research gap(s). In other words, they provide clues regarding potential opportunities for further research, which your study can then (hopefully) contribute toward filling. If you’re not familiar with the concept of a research gap, be sure to check out our explainer video covering exactly that .

3. Key Theories

The next question you need to ask yourself is: “Which key theories seem to be coming up repeatedly?” .

Within most research spaces, you’ll find that you keep running into a handful of key theories that are referred to over and over again. Apart from identifying these theories, you’ll also need to think about how they’re connected to each other. Specifically, you need to ask yourself:

• Are they all covering the same ground or do they have different focal points  or underlying assumptions ?
• Do some of them feed into each other and if so, is there an opportunity to integrate them into a more cohesive theory?
• Do some of them pull in different directions ? If so, why might this be?
• Do all of the theories define the key concepts and variables in the same way, or is there some disconnect? If so, what’s the impact of this ?

Simply put, you’ll need to pay careful attention to the key theories in your research area, as they will need to feature within your theoretical framework , which will form a critical component within your final literature review. This will set the foundation for your entire study, so it’s essential that you be critical in this area of your literature synthesis.

If this sounds a bit fluffy, don’t worry. We deep dive into the theoretical framework (as well as the conceptual framework) and look at practical examples in Literature Review Bootcamp . If you’d like to learn more, take advantage of our limited-time offer to get 60% off the standard price.

4. Contexts

The next question that you need to address in your literature synthesis is an important one, and that is: “Which contexts have (and have not) been covered by the existing research?” .

For example, sticking with our earlier hypothetical topic (factors that impact job satisfaction), you may find that most of the research has focused on white-collar , management-level staff within a primarily Western context, but little has been done on blue-collar workers in an Eastern context. Given the significant socio-cultural differences between these two groups, this is an important observation, as it could present a contextual research gap .

In practical terms, this means that you’ll need to carefully assess the context of each piece of literature that you’re engaging with, especially the empirical research (i.e., studies that have collected and analysed real-world data). Ideally, you should keep notes regarding the context of each study in some sort of catalogue or sheet, so that you can easily make sense of this before you start the writing phase. If you’d like, our free literature catalogue worksheet is a great tool for this task.

5. Methodological Approaches

Last but certainly not least, you need to ask yourself the question: “What types of research methodologies have (and haven’t) been used?”

For example, you might find that most studies have approached the topic using qualitative methods such as interviews and thematic analysis. Alternatively, you might find that most studies have used quantitative methods such as online surveys and statistical analysis.

But why does this matter?

Well, it can run in one of two potential directions . If you find that the vast majority of studies use a specific methodological approach, this could provide you with a firm foundation on which to base your own study’s methodology . In other words, you can use the methodologies of similar studies to inform (and justify) your own study’s research design .

On the other hand, you might argue that the lack of diverse methodological approaches presents a research gap , and therefore your study could contribute toward filling that gap by taking a different approach. For example, taking a qualitative approach to a research area that is typically approached quantitatively. Of course, if you’re going to go against the methodological grain, you’ll need to provide a strong justification for why your proposed approach makes sense. Nevertheless, it is something worth at least considering.

Regardless of which route you opt for, you need to pay careful attention to the methodologies used in the relevant studies and provide at least some discussion about this in your write-up. Again, it’s useful to keep track of this on some sort of spreadsheet or catalogue as you digest each article, so consider grabbing a copy of our free literature catalogue if you don’t have anything in place.

Bringing It All Together

Alright, so we’ve looked at five important questions that you need to ask (and answer) to help you develop a strong synthesis within your literature review.  To recap, these are:

• Which things are broadly agreed upon within the current research?
• Which things are the subject of disagreement (or at least, present mixed findings)?
• Which theories seem to be central to your research topic and how do they relate or compare to each other?
• Which contexts have (and haven’t) been covered?
• Which methodological approaches are most common?

Importantly, you’re not just asking yourself these questions for the sake of asking them – they’re not just a reflection exercise. You need to weave your answers to them into your actual literature review when you write it up. How exactly you do this will vary from project to project depending on the structure you opt for, but you’ll still need to address them within your literature review, whichever route you go.

The best approach is to spend some time actually writing out your answers to these questions, as opposed to just thinking about them in your head. Putting your thoughts onto paper really helps you flesh out your thinking . As you do this, don’t just write down the answers – instead, think about what they mean in terms of the research gap you’ll present , as well as the methodological approach you’ll take . Your literature synthesis needs to lay the groundwork for these two things, so it’s essential that you link all of it together in your mind, and of course, on paper.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

excellent , thank you

Thank you for this significant piece of information.

This piece of information is very helpful. Thank you so much and look forward to hearing more literature review from you in near the future.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review

Elaine barnett-page.

1 Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating (EPPI-) Centre, Social Science Research Unit, 18 Woburn Square, London WC1H 0NS, UK

James Thomas

Associated data.

In recent years, a growing number of methods for synthesising qualitative research have emerged, particularly in relation to health-related research. There is a need for both researchers and commissioners to be able to distinguish between these methods and to select which method is the most appropriate to their situation.

A number of methodological and conceptual links between these methods were identified and explored, while contrasting epistemological positions explained differences in approaches to issues such as quality assessment and extent of iteration. Methods broadly fall into 'realist' or 'idealist' epistemologies, which partly accounts for these differences.

Methods for qualitative synthesis vary across a range of dimensions. Commissioners of qualitative syntheses might wish to consider the kind of product they want and select their method – or type of method – accordingly.

The range of different methods for synthesising qualitative research has been growing over recent years [ 1 , 2 ], alongside an increasing interest in qualitative synthesis to inform health-related policy and practice [ 3 ]. While the terms 'meta-analysis' (a statistical method to combine the results of primary studies), or sometimes 'narrative synthesis', are frequently used to describe how quantitative research is synthesised, far more terms are used to describe the synthesis of qualitative research. This profusion of terms can mask some of the basic similarities in approach that the different methods share, and also lead to some confusion regarding which method is most appropriate in a given situation. This paper does not argue that the various nomenclatures are unnecessary, but rather seeks to draw together and review the full range of methods of synthesis available to assist future reviewers in selecting a method that is fit for their purpose. It also represents an attempt to guide the reader through some of the varied terminology to spring up around qualitative synthesis. Other helpful reviews of synthesis methods have been undertaken in recent years with slightly different foci to this paper. Two recent studies have focused on describing and critiquing methods for the integration of qualitative research with quantitative [ 4 , 5 ] rather than exclusively examining the detail and rationale of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research. Two other significant pieces of work give practical advice for conducting the synthesis of qualitative research, but do not discuss the full range of methods available [ 6 , 7 ]. We begin our Discussion by outlining each method of synthesis in turn, before comparing and contrasting characteristics of these different methods across a range of dimensions. Readers who are more familiar with the synthesis methods described here may prefer to turn straight to the 'dimensions of difference' analysis in the second part of the Discussion.

Overview of synthesis methods

Meta-ethnography.

In their seminal work of 1988, Noblit and Hare proposed meta-ethnography as an alternative to meta-analysis [ 8 ]. They cited Strike and Posner's [ 9 ] definition of synthesis as an activity in which separate parts are brought together to form a 'whole'; this construction of the whole is essentially characterised by some degree of innovation, so that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. They also borrowed from Turner's theory of social explanation [ 10 ], a key tenet of which was building 'comparative understanding' [[ 8 ], p22] rather than aggregating data.

To Noblit and Hare, synthesis provided an answer to the question of 'how to "put together" written interpretive accounts' [[ 8 ], p7], where mere integration would not be appropriate. Noblit and Hare's early work synthesised research from the field of education.

Three different methods of synthesis are used in meta-ethnography. One involves the 'translation' of concepts from individual studies into one another, thereby evolving overarching concepts or metaphors. Noblit and Hare called this process reciprocal translational analysis (RTA). Refutational synthesis involves exploring and explaining contradictions between individual studies. Lines-of-argument (LOA) synthesis involves building up a picture of the whole (i.e. culture, organisation etc) from studies of its parts. The authors conceptualised this latter approach as a type of grounded theorising.

Britten et al [ 11 ] and Campbell et al [ 12 ] have both conducted evaluations of meta-ethnography and claim to have succeeded, by using this method, in producing theories with greater explanatory power than could be achieved in a narrative literature review. While both these evaluations used small numbers of studies, more recently Pound et al [ 13 ] conducted both an RTA and an LOA synthesis using a much larger number of studies (37) on resisting medicines. These studies demonstrate that meta-ethnography has evolved since Noblit and Hare first introduced it. Campbell et al claim to have applied the method successfully to non-ethnographical studies. Based on their reading of Schutz [ 14 ], Britten et al have developed both second and third order constructs in their synthesis (Noblit and Hare briefly allude to the possibility of a 'second level of synthesis' [[ 8 ], p28] but do not demonstrate or further develop the idea).

In a more recent development, Sandelowski & Barroso [ 15 ] write of adapting RTA by using it to ' integrate findings interpretively, as opposed to comparing them interpretively' (p204). The former would involve looking to see whether the same concept, theory etc exists in different studies; the latter would involve the construction of a bigger picture or theory (i.e. LOA synthesis). They also talk about comparing or integrating imported concepts (e.g. from other disciplines) as well as those evolved 'in vivo'.

Grounded theory

Kearney [ 16 ], Eaves [ 17 ] and Finfgeld [ 18 ] have all adapted grounded theory to formulate a method of synthesis. Key methods and assumptions of grounded theory, as originally formulated and subsequently refined by Glaser and Strauss [ 19 ] and Strauss and Corbin [ 20 , 21 ], include: simultaneous phases of data collection and analysis; an inductive approach to analysis, allowing the theory to emerge from the data; the use of the constant comparison method; the use of theoretical sampling to reach theoretical saturation; and the generation of new theory. Eaves cited grounded theorists Charmaz [ 22 ] and Chesler [ 23 ], as well as Strauss and Corbin [ 20 ], as informing her approach to synthesis.

Glaser and Strauss [ 19 ] foresaw a time when a substantive body of grounded research should be pushed towards a higher, more abstract level. As a piece of methodological work, Eaves undertook her own synthesis of the synthesis methods used by these authors to produce her own clear and explicit guide to synthesis in grounded formal theory. Kearney stated that 'grounded formal theory', as she termed this method of synthesis, 'is suited to study of phenomena involving processes of contextualized understanding and action' [[ 24 ], p180] and, as such, is particularly applicable to nurses' research interests.

As Kearney suggested, the examples examined here were largely dominated by research in nursing. Eaves synthesised studies on care-giving in rural African-American families for elderly stroke survivors; Finfgeld on courage among individuals with long-term health problems; Kearney on women's experiences of domestic violence.

Kearney explicitly chose 'grounded formal theory' because it matches 'like' with 'like': that is, it applies the same methods that have been used to generate the original grounded theories included in the synthesis – produced by constant comparison and theoretical sampling – to generate a higher-level grounded theory. The wish to match 'like' with 'like' is also implicit in Eaves' paper. This distinguishes grounded formal theory from more recent applications of meta-ethnography, which have sought to include qualitative research using diverse methodological approaches [ 12 ].

Thematic Synthesis

Thomas and Harden [ 25 ] have developed an approach to synthesis which they term 'thematic synthesis'. This combines and adapts approaches from both meta-ethnography and grounded theory. The method was developed out of a need to conduct reviews that addressed questions relating to intervention need, appropriateness and acceptability – as well as those relating to effectiveness – without compromising on key principles developed in systematic reviews. They applied thematic synthesis in a review of the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating amongst children.

Free codes of findings are organised into 'descriptive' themes, which are then further interpreted to yield 'analytical' themes. This approach shares characteristics with later adaptations of meta-ethnography, in that the analytical themes are comparable to 'third order interpretations' and that the development of descriptive and analytical themes using coding invoke reciprocal 'translation'. It also shares much with grounded theory, in that the approach is inductive and themes are developed using a 'constant comparison' method. A novel aspect of their approach is the use of computer software to code the results of included studies line-by-line, thus borrowing another technique from methods usually used to analyse primary research.

Textual Narrative Synthesis

Textual narrative synthesis is an approach which arranges studies into more homogenous groups. Lucas et al [ 26 ] comment that it has proved useful in synthesising evidence of different types (qualitative, quantitative, economic etc). Typically, study characteristics, context, quality and findings are reported on according to a standard format and similarities and differences are compared across studies. Structured summaries may also be developed, elaborating on and putting into context the extracted data [ 27 ].

Lucas et al [ 26 ] compared thematic synthesis with textual narrative synthesis. They found that 'thematic synthesis holds most potential for hypothesis generation' whereas textual narrative synthesis is more likely to make transparent heterogeneity between studies (as does meta-ethnography, with refutational synthesis) and issues of quality appraisal. This is possibly because textual narrative synthesis makes clearer the context and characteristics of each study, while the thematic approach organises data according to themes. However, Lucas et al found that textual narrative synthesis is 'less good at identifying commonality' (p2); the authors do not make explicit why this should be, although it may be that organising according to themes, as the thematic approach does, is comparatively more successful in revealing commonality.

Paterson et al [ 28 ] have evolved a multi-faceted approach to synthesis, which they call 'meta-study'. The sociologist Zhao [ 29 ], drawing on Ritzer's work [ 30 ], outlined three components of analysis, which they proposed should be undertaken prior to synthesis. These are meta-data-analysis (the analysis of findings), meta-method (the analysis of methods) and meta-theory (the analysis of theory). Collectively, these three elements of analysis, culminating in synthesis, make up the practice of 'meta-study'. Paterson et al pointed out that the different components of analysis may be conducted concurrently.

Paterson et al argued that primary research is a construction; secondary research is therefore a construction of a construction. There is need for an approach that recognises this, and that also recognises research to be a product of its social, historical and ideological context. Such an approach would be useful in accounting for differences in research findings. For Paterson et al, there is no such thing as 'absolute truth'.

Meta-study was developed to study the experiences of adults living with a chronic illness. Meta-data-analysis was conceived of by Paterson et al in similar terms to Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnography (see above), in that it is essentially interpretive and seeks to reveal similarities and discrepancies among accounts of a particular phenomenon. Meta-method involves the examination of the methodologies of the individual studies under review. Part of the process of meta-method is to consider different aspects of methodology such as sampling, data collection, research design etc, similar to procedures others have called 'critical appraisal' (CASP [ 31 ]). However, Paterson et al take their critique to a deeper level by establishing the underlying assumptions of the methodologies used and the relationship between research outcomes and methods used. Meta-theory involves scrutiny of the philosophical and theoretical assumptions of the included research papers; this includes looking at the wider context in which new theory is generated. Paterson et al described meta-synthesis as a process which creates a new interpretation which accounts for the results of all three elements of analysis. The process of synthesis is iterative and reflexive and the authors were unwilling to oversimplify the process by 'codifying' procedures for bringing all three components of analysis together.

Meta-narrative

Greenhalgh et al [ 32 ]'s meta-narrative approach to synthesis arose out of the need to synthesise evidence to inform complex policy-making questions and was assisted by the formation of a multi-disciplinary team. Their approach to review was informed by Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [ 33 ], in which he proposed that knowledge is produced within particular paradigms which have their own assumptions about theory, about what is a legitimate object of study, about what are legitimate research questions and about what constitutes a finding. Paradigms also tend to develop through time according to a particular set of stages, central to which is the stage of 'normal science', in which the particular standards of the paradigm are largely unchallenged and seen to be self-evident. As Greenhalgh et al pointed out, Kuhn saw paradigms as largely incommensurable: 'that is, an empirical discovery made using one set of concepts, theories, methods and instruments cannot be satisfactorily explained through a different paradigmatic lens' [[ 32 ], p419].

Greenhalgh et al synthesised research from a wide range of disciplines; their research question related to the diffusion of innovations in health service delivery and organisation. They thus identified a need to synthesise findings from research which contains many different theories arising from many different disciplines and study designs.

Based on Kuhn's work, Greenhalgh et al proposed that, across different paradigms, there were multiple – and potentially mutually contradictory – ways of understanding the concept at the heart of their review, namely the diffusion of innovation. Bearing this in mind, the reviewers deliberately chose to select key papers from a number of different research 'paradigms' or 'traditions', both within and beyond healthcare, guided by their multidisciplinary research team. They took as their unit of analysis the 'unfolding "storyline" of a research tradition over time' [[ 32 ], p417) and sought to understand diffusion of innovation as it was conceptualised in each of these traditions. Key features of each tradition were mapped: historical roots, scope, theoretical basis; research questions asked and methods/instruments used; main empirical findings; historical development of the body of knowledge (how have earlier findings led to later findings); and strengths and limitations of the tradition. The results of this exercise led to maps of 13 'meta-narratives' in total, from which seven key dimensions, or themes, were identified and distilled for the synthesis phase of the review.

Critical Interpretive Synthesis

Dixon-Woods et al [ 34 ] developed their own approach to synthesising multi-disciplinary and multi-method evidence, termed 'critical interpretive synthesis', while researching access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. Critical interpretive synthesis is an adaptation of meta-ethnography, as well as borrowing techniques from grounded theory. The authors stated that they needed to adapt traditional meta-ethnographic methods for synthesis, since these had never been applied to quantitative as well as qualitative data, nor had they been applied to a substantial body of data (in this case, 119 papers).

Dixon-Woods et al presented critical interpretive synthesis as an approach to the whole process of review, rather than to just the synthesis component. It involves an iterative approach to refining the research question and searching and selecting from the literature (using theoretical sampling) and defining and applying codes and categories. It also has a particular approach to appraising quality, using relevance – i.e. likely contribution to theory development – rather than methodological characteristics as a means of determining the 'quality' of individual papers [ 35 ]. The authors also stress, as a defining characteristic, critical interpretive synthesis's critical approach to the literature in terms of deconstructing research traditions or theoretical assumptions as a means of contextualising findings.

Dixon-Woods et al rejected reciprocal translational analysis (RTA) as this produced 'only a summary in terms that have already been used in the literature' [[ 34 ], p5], which was seen as less helpful when dealing with a large and diverse body of literature. Instead, Dixon-Woods et al adopted a lines-of-argument (LOA) synthesis, in which – rejecting the difference between first, second and third order constructs – they instead developed 'synthetic constructs' which were then linked with constructs arising directly from the literature.

The influence of grounded theory can be seen in particular in critical interpretive synthesis's inductive approach to formulating the review question and to developing categories and concepts, rejecting a 'stage' approach to systematic reviewing, and in selecting papers using theoretical sampling. Dixon-Woods et al also claim that critical interpretive synthesis is distinct in its 'explicit orientation towards theory generation' [[ 34 ], p9].

Ecological Triangulation

Jim Banning is the author of 'ecological triangulation' or 'ecological sentence synthesis', applying this method to the evidence for what works for youth with disabilities. He borrows from Webb et al [ 36 ] and Denzin [ 37 ] the concept of triangulation, in which phenomena are studied from a variety of vantage points. His rationale is that building an 'evidence base' of effectiveness requires the synthesis of cumulative, multi-faceted evidence in order to find out 'what intervention works for what kind of outcomes for what kind of persons under what kind of conditions' [[ 38 ], p1].

Ecological triangulation unpicks the mutually interdependent relationships between behaviour, persons and environments. The method requires that, for data extraction and synthesis, 'ecological sentences' are formulated following the pattern: 'With this intervention, these outcomes occur with these population foci and within these grades (ages), with these genders ... and these ethnicities in these settings' [[ 39 ], p1].

Framework Synthesis

Brunton et al [ 40 ] and Oliver et al [ 41 ] have applied a 'framework synthesis' approach in their reviews. Framework synthesis is based on framework analysis, which was outlined by Pope, Ziebland and Mays [ 42 ], and draws upon the work of Ritchie and Spencer [ 43 ] and Miles and Huberman [ 44 ]. Its rationale is that qualitative research produces large amounts of textual data in the form of transcripts, observational fieldnotes etc. The sheer wealth of information poses a challenge for rigorous analysis. Framework synthesis offers a highly structured approach to organising and analysing data (e.g. indexing using numerical codes, rearranging data into charts etc).

Brunton et al applied the approach to a review of children's, young people's and parents' views of walking and cycling; Oliver et al to an analysis of public involvement in health services research. Framework synthesis is distinct from the other methods outlined here in that it utilises an a priori 'framework' – informed by background material and team discussions – to extract and synthesise findings. As such, it is largely a deductive approach although, in addition to topics identified by the framework, new topics may be developed and incorporated as they emerge from the data. The synthetic product can be expressed in the form of a chart for each key dimension identified, which may be used to map the nature and range of the concept under study and find associations between themes and exceptions to these [ 40 ].

'Fledgling' approaches

There are three other approaches to synthesis which have not yet been widely used. One is an approach using content analysis [ 45 , 46 ] in which text is condensed into fewer content-related categories. Another is 'meta-interpretation' [ 47 ], featuring the following: an ideographic rather than pre-determined approach to the development of exclusion criteria; a focus on meaning in context; interpretations as raw data for synthesis (although this feature doesn't distinguish it from other synthesis methods); an iterative approach to the theoretical sampling of studies for synthesis; and a transparent audit trail demonstrating the trustworthiness of the synthesis.

In addition to the synthesis methods discussed above, Sandelowski and Barroso propose a method they call 'qualitative metasummary' [ 15 ]. It is mentioned here as a new and original approach to handling a collection of qualitative studies but is qualitatively different to the other methods described here since it is aggregative; that is, findings are accumulated and summarised rather than 'transformed'. Metasummary is a way of producing a 'map' of the contents of qualitative studies and – according to Sandelowski and Barroso – 'reflect [s] a quantitative logic' [[ 15 ], p151]. The frequency of each finding is determined and the higher the frequency of a particular finding, the greater its validity. The authors even discuss the calculation of 'effect sizes' for qualitative findings. Qualitative metasummaries can be undertaken as an end in themselves or may serve as a basis for a further synthesis.

Dimensions of difference

Having outlined the range of methods identified, we now turn to an examination of how they compare with one another. It is clear that they have come from many different contexts and have different approaches to understanding knowledge, but what do these differences mean in practice? Our framework for this analysis is shown in Additional file 1 : dimensions of difference [ 48 ]. We have examined the epistemology of each of the methods and found that, to some extent, this explains the need for different methods and their various approaches to synthesis.

Epistemology

The first dimension that we will consider is that of the researchers' epistemological assumptions. Spencer et al [ 49 ] outline a range of epistemological positions, which might be organised into a spectrum as follows:

Subjective idealism : there is no shared reality independent of multiple alternative human constructions

Objective idealism : there is a world of collectively shared understandings

Critical realism : knowledge of reality is mediated by our perceptions and beliefs

Scientific realism : it is possible for knowledge to approximate closely an external reality

Naïve realism : reality exists independently of human constructions and can be known directly [ 49 , 45 , 46 ].

Thus, at one end of the spectrum we have a highly constructivist view of knowledge and, at the other, an unproblematized 'direct window onto the world' view.

Nearly all of positions along this spectrum are represented in the range of methodological approaches to synthesis covered in this paper. The originators of meta-narrative synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-study all articulate what might be termed a 'subjective idealist' approach to knowledge. Paterson et al [ 28 ] state that meta-study shies away from creating 'grand theories' within the health or social sciences and assume that no single objective reality will be found. Primary studies, they argue, are themselves constructions; meta-synthesis, then, 'deals with constructions of constructions' (p7). Greenhalgh et al [ 32 ] also view knowledge as a product of its disciplinary paradigm and use this to explain conflicting findings: again, the authors neither seek, nor expect to find, one final, non-contestable answer to their research question. Critical interpretive synthesis is similar in seeking to place literature within its context, to question its assumptions and to produce a theoretical model of a phenomenon which – because highly interpretive – may not be reproducible by different research teams at alternative points in time [[ 34 ], p11].

Methods used to synthesise grounded theory studies in order to produce a higher level of grounded theory [ 24 ] appear to be informed by 'objective idealism', as does meta-ethnography. Kearney argues for the near-universal applicability of a 'ready-to-wear' theory across contexts and populations. This approach is clearly distinct from one which recognises multiple realities. The emphasis is on examining commonalities amongst, rather than discrepancies between, accounts. This emphasis is similarly apparent in most meta-ethnographies, which are conducted either according to Noblit and Hare's 'reciprocal translational analysis' technique or to their 'lines-of-argument' technique and which seek to provide a 'whole' which has a greater explanatory power. Although Noblit and Hare also propose 'refutational synthesis', in which contradictory findings might be explored, there are few examples of this having been undertaken in practice, and the aim of the method appears to be to explain and explore differences due to context, rather than multiple realities.

Despite an assumption of a reality which is perhaps less contestable than those of meta-narrative synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-study, both grounded formal theory and meta-ethnography place a great deal of emphasis on the interpretive nature of their methods. This still supposes a degree of constructivism. Although less explicit about how their methods are informed, it seems that both thematic synthesis and framework synthesis – while also involving some interpretation of data – share an even less problematized view of reality and a greater assumption that their synthetic products are reproducible and correspond to a shared reality. This is also implicit in the fact that such products are designed directly to inform policy and practice, a characteristic shared by ecological triangulation. Notably, ecological triangulation, according to Banning, can be either realist or idealist. Banning argues that the interpretation of triangulation can either be one in which multiple viewpoints converge on a point to produce confirming evidence (i.e. one definitive answer to the research question) or an idealist one, in which the complexity of multiple viewpoints is represented. Thus, although ecological triangulation views reality as complex, the approach assumes that it can be approximately knowable (at least when the realist view of ecological triangulation is adopted) and that interventions can and should be modelled according to the products of its syntheses.

While pigeonholing different methods into specific epistemological positions is a problematic process, we do suggest that the contrasting epistemologies of different researchers is one way of explaining why we have – and need – different methods for synthesis.

Variation in terms of the extent of iteration during the review process is another key dimension. All synthesis methods include some iteration but the degree varies. Meta-ethnography, grounded theory and thematic synthesis all include iteration at the synthesis stage; both framework synthesis and critical interpretive synthesis involve iterative literature searching – in the case of critical interpretive synthesis, it is not clear whether iteration occurs during the rest of the review process. Meta-narrative also involves iteration at every stage. Banning does not mention iteration in outlining ecological triangulation and neither do Lucas or Thomas and Harden for thematic narrative synthesis.

It seems that the more idealist the approach, the greater the extent of iteration. This might be because a large degree of iteration does not sit well with a more 'positivist' ideal of procedural objectivity; in particular, the notion that the robustness of the synthetic product depends in part on the reviewers stating up front in a protocol their searching strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria etc, and being seen not to alter these at a later stage.

Quality assessment

Another dimension along which we can look at different synthesis methods is that of quality assessment. When the approaches to the assessment of the quality of studies retrieved for review are examined, there is again a wide methodological variation. It might be expected that the further towards the 'realism' end of the epistemological spectrum a method of synthesis falls, the greater the emphasis on quality assessment. In fact, this is only partially the case.

Framework synthesis, thematic narrative synthesis and thematic synthesis – methods which might be classified as sharing a 'critical realist' approach – all have highly specified approaches to quality assessment. The review in which framework synthesis was developed applied ten quality criteria: two on quality and reporting of sampling methods, four to the quality of the description of the sample in the study, two to the reliability and validity of the tools used to collect data and one on whether studies used appropriate methods for helping people to express their views. Studies which did not meet a certain number of quality criteria were excluded from contributing to findings. Similarly, in the example review for thematic synthesis, 12 criteria were applied: five related to reporting aims, context, rationale, methods and findings; four relating to reliability and validity; and three relating to the appropriateness of methods for ensuring that findings were rooted in participants' own perspectives. Studies which were deemed to have significant flaws were excluded and sensitivity analyses were used to assess the possible impact of study quality on the review's findings. Thomas and Harden's use of thematic narrative synthesis similarly applied quality criteria and developed criteria additional to those they found in the literature on quality assessment, relating to the extent to which people's views and perspectives had been privileged by researchers. It is worth noting not only that these methods apply quality criteria but that they are explicit about what they are: assessing quality is a key component in the review process for both of these methods. Likewise, Banning – the originator of ecological triangulation – sees quality assessment as important and adapts the Design and Implementation Assessment Device (DIAD) Version 0.3 (a quality assessment tool for quantitative research) for use when appraising qualitative studies [ 50 ]. Again, Banning writes of excluding studies deemed to be of poor quality.

Greenhalgh et al's meta-narrative review [ 32 ] modified a range of existing quality assessment tools to evaluate studies according to validity and robustness of methods; sample size and power; and validity of conclusions. The authors imply, but are not explicit, that this process formed the basis for the exclusion of some studies. Although not quite so clear about quality assessment methods as framework and thematic synthesis, it might be argued that meta-narrative synthesis shows a greater commitment to the concept that research can and should be assessed for quality than either meta-ethnography or grounded formal theory. The originators of meta-ethnography, Noblit and Hare [ 8 ], originally discussed quality in terms of quality of metaphor, while more recent use of this method has used amended versions of CASP (the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool, [ 31 ]), yet has only referred to studies being excluded on the basis of lack of relevance or because they weren't 'qualitative' studies [ 8 ]. In grounded theory, quality assessment is only discussed in terms of a 'personal note' being made on the context, quality and usefulness of each study. However, contrary to expectation, meta-narrative synthesis lies at the extreme end of the idealism/realism spectrum – as a subjective idealist approach – while meta-ethnography and grounded theory are classified as objective idealist approaches.

Finally, meta-study and critical interpretive synthesis – two more subjective idealist approaches – look to the content and utility of findings rather than methodology in order to establish quality. While earlier forms of meta-study included only studies which demonstrated 'epistemological soundness', in its most recent form [ 51 ] this method has sought to include all relevant studies, excluding only those deemed not to be 'qualitative' research. Critical interpretive synthesis also conforms to what we might expect of its approach to quality assessment: quality of research is judged as the extent to which it informs theory. The threshold of inclusion is informed by expertise and instinct rather than being articulated a priori.

In terms of quality assessment, it might be important to consider the academic context in which these various methods of synthesis developed. The reason why thematic synthesis, framework synthesis and ecological triangulation have such highly specified approaches to quality assessment may be that each of these was developed for a particular task, i.e. to conduct a multi-method review in which randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The concept of quality assessment in relation to RCTs is much less contested and there is general agreement on criteria against which quality should be judged.

Problematizing the literature

Critical interpretive synthesis, the meta-narrative approach and the meta-theory element of meta-study all share some common ground in that their review and synthesis processes include examining all aspects of the context in which knowledge is produced. In conducting a review on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups, critical interpretive synthesis sought to question 'the ways in which the literature had constructed the problematics of access, the nature of the assumptions on which it drew, and what has influenced its choice of proposed solutions' [[ 34 ], p6]. Although not claiming to have been directly influenced by Greenhalgh et al's meta-narrative approach, Dixon-Woods et al do cite it as sharing similar characteristics in the sense that it critiques the literature it reviews.

Meta-study uses meta-theory to describe and deconstruct the theories that shape a body of research and to assess its quality. One aspect of this process is to examine the historical evolution of each theory and to put it in its socio-political context, which invites direct comparison with meta-narrative synthesis. Greenhalgh et al put a similar emphasis on placing research findings within their social and historical context, often as a means of seeking to explain heterogeneity of findings. In addition, meta-narrative shares with critical interpretive synthesis an iterative approach to searching and selecting from the literature.

Framework synthesis, thematic synthesis, textual narrative synthesis, meta-ethnography and grounded theory do not share the same approach to problematizing the literature as critical interpretive synthesis, meta-study and meta-narrative. In part, this may be explained by the extent to which studies included in the synthesis represented a broad range of approaches or methodologies. This, in turn, may reflect the broadness of the review question and the extent to which the concepts contained within the question are pre-defined within the literature. In the case of both the critical interpretive synthesis and meta-narrative reviews, terminology was elastic and/or the question formed iteratively. Similarly, both reviews placed great emphasis on employing multi-disciplinary research teams. Approaches which do not critique the literature in the same way tend to have more narrowly-focused questions. They also tend to include a more limited range of studies: grounded theory synthesis includes grounded theory studies, meta-ethnography (in its original form, as applied by Noblit and Hare) ethnographies. The thematic synthesis incorporated studies based on only a narrow range of qualitative methodologies (interviews and focus groups) which were informed by a similarly narrow range of epistemological assumptions. It may be that the authors of such syntheses saw no need for including such a critique in their review process.

Similarities and differences between primary studies

Most methods of synthesis are applicable to heterogeneous data (i.e. studies which use contrasting methodologies) apart from early meta-ethnography and synthesis informed by grounded theory. All methods of synthesis state that, at some level, studies are compared; many are not so explicit about how this is done, though some are. Meta-ethnography is one of the most explicit: it describes the act of 'translation' where terms and concepts which have resonance with one another are subsumed into 'higher order constructs'. Grounded theory, as represented by Eaves [ 17 ], is undertaken according to a long list of steps and sub-steps, includes the production of generalizations about concepts/categories, which comes from classifying these categories. In meta-narrative synthesis, comparable studies are grouped together at the appraisal phase of review.

Perhaps more interesting are the ways in which differences between studies are explored. Those methods with a greater emphasis on critical appraisal may tend (although this is not always made explicit) to use differences in method to explain differences in finding. Meta-ethnography proposes 'refutational synthesis' to explain differences, although there are few examples of this in the literature. Some synthesis methods – for example, thematic synthesis – look at other characteristics of the studies under review, whether types of participants and their context vary, and whether this can explain differences in perspective.

All of these methods, then, look within the studies to explain differences. Other methods look beyond the study itself to the context in which it was produced. Critical interpretive synthesis and meta-study look at differences in theory or in socio-economic context. Critical interpretive synthesis, like meta-narrative, also explores epistemological orientation. Meta-narrative is unique in concerning itself with disciplinary paradigm (i.e. the story of the discipline as it progresses). It is also distinctive in that it treats conflicting findings as 'higher order data' [[ 32 ], p420], so that the main emphasis of the synthesis appears to be on examining and explaining contradictions in the literature.

Going 'beyond' the primary studies

Synthesis is sometimes defined as a process resulting in a product, a 'whole', which is more than the sum of its parts. However, the methods reviewed here vary in the extent to which they attempt to 'go beyond' the primary studies and transform the data. Some methods – textual narrative synthesis, ecological triangulation and framework synthesis – focus on describing and summarising their primary data (often in a highly structured and detailed way) and translating the studies into one another. Others – meta-ethnography, grounded theory, thematic synthesis, meta-study, meta-narrative and critical interpretive synthesis – seek to push beyond the original data to a fresh interpretation of the phenomena under review. A key feature of thematic synthesis is its clear differentiation between these two stages.

Different methods have different mechanisms for going beyond the primary studies, although some are more explicit than others about what these entail. Meta-ethnography proposes a 'Line of Argument' (LOA) synthesis in which an interpretation is constructed to both link and explain a set of parts. Critical interpretive synthesis based its synthesis methods on those of meta-ethnography, developing an LOA using what the authors term 'synthetic constructs' (akin to 'third order constructs' in meta-ethnography) to create a 'synthesising argument'. Dixon-Woods et al claim that this is an advance on Britten et al's methods, in that they reject the difference between first, second and third order constructs.

Meta-narrative, as outlined above, focuses on conflicting findings and constructs theories to explain these in terms of differing paradigms. Meta study derives questions from each of its three components to which it subjects the dataset and inductively generates a number of theoretical claims in relation to it. According to Eaves' model of grounded theory [ 17 ], mini-theories are integrated to produce an explanatory framework. In ecological triangulation, the 'axial' codes – or second level codes evolved from the initial deductive open codes – are used to produce Banning's 'ecological sentence' [ 39 ].

The synthetic product

In overviewing and comparing different qualitative synthesis methods, the ultimate question relates to the utility of the synthetic product: what is it for? It is clear that some methods of synthesis – namely, thematic synthesis, textual narrative synthesis, framework synthesis and ecological triangulation – view themselves as producing an output that is directly applicable to policy makers and designers of interventions. The example of framework synthesis examined here (on children's, young people's and parents' views of walking and cycling) involved policy makers and practitioners in directing the focus of the synthesis and used the themes derived from the synthesis to infer what kind of interventions might be most effective in encouraging walking and cycling. Likewise, the products of the thematic synthesis took the form of practical recommendations for interventions (e.g. 'do not promote fruit and vegetables in the same way in the same intervention'). The extent to which policy makers and practitioners are involved in informing either synthesis or recommendation is less clear from the documents published on ecological triangulation, but the aim certainly is to directly inform practice.

The outputs of synthesis methods which have a more constructivist orientation – meta-study, meta-narrative, meta-ethnography, grounded theory, critical interpretive synthesis – tend to look rather different. They are generally more complex and conceptual, sometimes operating on the symbolic or metaphorical level, and requiring a further process of interpretation by policy makers and practitioners in order for them to inform practice. This is not to say, however, that they are not useful for practice, more that they are doing different work. However, it may be that, in the absence of further interpretation, they are more useful for informing other researchers and theoreticians.

Looking across dimensions

After examining the dimensions of difference of our included methods, what picture ultimately emerges? It seems clear that, while similar in some respects, there are genuine differences in approach to the synthesis of what is essentially textual data. To some extent, these differences can be explained by the epistemological assumptions that underpin each method. Our methods split into two broad camps: the idealist and the realist (see Table ​ Table1 1 for a summary). Idealist approaches generally tend to have a more iterative approach to searching (and the review process), have less a priori quality assessment procedures and are more inclined to problematize the literature. Realist approaches are characterised by a more linear approach to searching and review, have clearer and more well-developed approaches to quality assessment, and do not problematize the literature.

Summary table

N.B.: In terms of the above dimensions, it is generally a question of degree rather than of absolute distinctions.

Mapping the relationships between methods

What is interesting is the relationship between these methods of synthesis, the conceptual links between them, and the extent to which the originators cite – or, in some cases, don't cite – one another. Some methods directly build on others – framework synthesis builds on framework analysis, for example, while grounded theory and constant comparative analysis build on grounded theory. Others further develop existing methods – meta-study, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-narrative all adapt aspects of meta-ethnography, while also importing concepts from other theorists (critical interpretive synthesis also adapts grounded theory techniques).

Some methods share a clear conceptual link, without directly citing one another: for example, the analytical themes developed during thematic synthesis are comparable to the third order interpretations of meta-ethnography. The meta-theory aspect of meta-study is echoed in both meta-narrative synthesis and critical interpretive synthesis (see 'Problematizing the literature, above); however, the originators of critical interpretive synthesis only refer to the originators of meta-study in relation to their use of sampling techniques.

While methods for qualitative synthesis have many similarities, there are clear differences in approach between them, many of which can be explained by taking account of a given method's epistemology.

However, within the two broad idealist/realist categories, any differences between methods in terms of outputs appear to be small.

Since many systematic reviews are designed to inform policy and practice, it is important to select a method – or type of method – that will produce the kind of conclusions needed. However, it is acknowledged that this is not always simple or even possible to achieve in practice.

The approaches that result in more easily translatable messages for policy-makers and practitioners may appear to be more attractive than the others; but we do need to take account lessons from the more idealist end of the spectrum, that some perspectives are not universal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

Both authors made substantial contributions, with EBP taking a lead on writing and JT on the analytical framework. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/9/59/prepub

Supplementary Material

Dimensions of difference . Ranging from subjective idealism through objective idealism and critical realism to scientific realism to naïve realism

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful contributions of the following in commenting on earlier drafts of this paper: David Gough, Sandy Oliver, Angela Harden, Mary Dixon-Woods, Trisha Greenhalgh and Barbara L. Paterson. We would also like to thank the peer reviewers: Helen J Smith, Rosaline Barbour and Mark Rodgers for their helpful reviews. The methodological development was supported by the Department of Health (England) and the ESRC through the Methods for Research Synthesis Node of the National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM). An earlier draft of this paper currently appears as a working paper on the National Centre for Research Methods' website http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/ .

• Dixon-Woods M, Agarwhal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005; 10 (1):45–53b. doi: 10.1258/1355819052801804. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour RS, Barbour M. Evaluating and synthesizing qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003; 9 (2):179–186. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00371.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):6–20. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308576. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Shaw RL, Smith J, Sutton A, Young B. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006; 6 :27–44. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence: a Guide to Methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorne S, Jenson L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M. Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res. 2004; 14 :1342–1365. doi: 10.1177/1049732304269888. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews. CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York: CRD; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. London: Sage; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strike K, Posner G. In: Knowledge Structure and Use. Ward S, Reed L, editor. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1983. Types of synthesis and their criteria. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner S. Sociological Explanation as Translation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta-ethnography to synthesis qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res. 2002; 7 :209–15. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432732. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 65 :671–84. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campbell R. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61 :133–155. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.063. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schutz A. Collected Paper. Vol. 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kearney MH. Enduring love: a grounded formal theory of women's experience of domestic violence. Research Nurs Health. 2001; 24 :270–82. doi: 10.1002/nur.1029. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eaves YD. A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2001; 35 :654–63. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01897.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finfgeld D. Courage as a process of pushing beyond the struggle. Qual Health Res. 1999; 9 :803–814. doi: 10.1177/104973299129122298. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. In: Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings. Emerson RM, editor. Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL; 1983. The grounded theory method: an explication and interpretation; pp. 109–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chesler MA. Professionals' Views of the Dangers of Self-Help Groups: Explicating a Grounded Theoretical Approach. [Michigan]: Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbour Centre for Research on Social Organisation, Working Paper Series; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kearney MH. Ready-to-wear: discovering grounded formal theory. Res Nurs Health. 1988; 21 :179–186. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199804)21:2<179::AID-NUR8>3.0.CO;2-G. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Meth. 2008; 8 :45. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucas PJ, Arai L, Baird, Law C, Roberts HM. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Meth. 2007; 7 (4) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oakley A. Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research. J Epidemiol Community H. 2004; 58 :794–800. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.014829. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paterson BL, Thorne SE, Canam C, Jillings C. Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. A Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao S. Metatheory, metamethod, meta-data-analysis: what, why and how? Sociol Perspect. 1991; 34 :377–390. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritzer G. Metatheorizing in Sociology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) http://www.phru.nhs.uk/Pages/PHD/CASP.htm date unknown.
• Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61 :417–30. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Hsu R, Katbamna S, Olsen R, Smith L, Riley R, Sutton AJ. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Meth. 2006; 6 (35) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough D. In: Applied and Practice-based Research. 2. Furlong J, Oancea A, editor. Vol. 22. Special Edition of Research Papers in Education; 2007. Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence; pp. 213–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, Sechrest L. Unobtrusive Measures. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin NK. The Research Act: a Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Banning J. Ecological Triangulation. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Ecological%20Triangualtion.pdf
• Banning J. Ecological Sentence Synthesis. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Ecological%20Sentence%20Synthesis.pdf
• Brunton G, Oliver S, Oliver K, Lorenc T. A Synthesis of Research Addressing Children's, Young People's and Parents' Views of Walking and Cycling for Transport. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver S, Rees R, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley A, Gabbay J, Stein K, Buchanan P, Gyte G. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008; 11 :72–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000; 320 :114–116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie J, Spencer L. In: Analysing Qualitative Data. Bryman A, Burgess R, editor. London: Routledge; 1993. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research; pp. 173–194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans D, Fitzgerald M. Reasons for physically restraining patients and residents: a systematic review and content analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2002; 39 :739–743. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7489(02)00015-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suikkala A, Leino-Kilpi H. Nursing student-patient relationships: a review of the literature from 1984–1998. J Adv Nurs. 2000; 33 :42–50. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01636.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weed M. 'Meta-interpretation': a method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum: Qual Soc Res. 2005; 6 :Art 37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough D, Thomas J. Dimensions of difference in systematic reviews. http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/RMF2008/festival/programme/sys1
• Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: a Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Banning J. Design and Implementation Assessment Device (DIAD) Version 0.3: A response from a qualitative perspective. http://mycahs.colostate.edu/James.H.Banning/PDFs/Design%20and%20Implementation%20Assessment%20Device.pdf
• Paterson BL. In: Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice. Webb C, Roe B, editor. [Oxford]: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2007. Coming out as ill: understanding self-disclosure in chronic illness from a meta-synthesis of qualitative research; pp. 73–83. [ Google Scholar ]

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Systematic reviews & evidence synthesis methods.

• Schedule a Consultation / Meet our Team
• What is Evidence Synthesis?
• Types of Evidence Synthesis
• Evidence Synthesis Across Disciplines
• Finding and Appraising Existing Systematic Reviews
• 0. Preliminary Searching
• 1. Develop a Protocol
• 2. Draft your Research Question
• 3. Select Databases
• 4. Select Grey Literature Sources
• 5. Write a Search Strategy
• 6. Register a Protocol
• 7. Translate Search Strategies
• 8. Citation Management
• 9. Article Screening
• 10. Risk of Bias Assessment
• 11. Data Extraction
• 12. Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Evidence Synthesis Resources & Tools

What are evidence syntheses?

According to the Royal Society, 'evidence synthesis' refers to the process of bringing together information from a range of sources and disciplines to inform debates and decisions on specific issues. They generally include a methodical and comprehensive literature synthesis focused on a well-formulated research question. Their aim is to identify and synthesize all of the scholarly research on a particular topic, including both published and unpublished studies. Evidence syntheses are conducted in an unbiased, reproducible way to provide evidence for practice and policy-making, as well as to identify gaps in the research. Evidence syntheses may also include a meta-analysis, a more quantitative process of synthesizing and visualizing data retrieved from various studies.

Evidence syntheses are much more time-intensive than traditional literature reviews and require a multi-person research team. See this PredicTER tool to get a sense of a systematic review timeline (one type of evidence synthesis). Before embarking on an evidence synthesis, it's important to clearly identify your reasons for conducting one. For a list of types of evidence synthesis projects, see the Types of Evidence Synthesis tab.

How does a traditional literature review differ from evidence synthesis?

One commonly used form of evidence synthesis is a systematic review. This table compares a traditional literature review with a systematic review.

Video: Reproducibility and transparent methods (Video 3:25)

Reporting standards

There are some reporting standards for evidence syntheses. These can serve as guidelines for protocol and manuscript preparation and journals may require that these standards are followed for the review type that is being employed (e.g. systematic review, scoping review, etc).​

• PRISMA checklist Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• PRISMA-P Standards An updated version of the original PRISMA standards for protocol development.
• PRISMA - ScR Reporting guidelines for scoping reviews and evidence maps
• PRISMA-IPD Standards Extension of the original PRISMA standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data.
• EQUATOR Network The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines. They provide a list of various standards for reporting in systematic reviews.

Video: Guidelines and reporting standards

PRISMA flow diagram

The PRISMA flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of an evidence synthesis. It maps the search (number of records identified), screening (number of records included and excluded), and selection (reasons for exclusion). Many evidence syntheses include a PRISMA flow diagram in the published manuscript.

See below for resources to help you generate your own PRISMA flow diagram.

• PRISMA Flow Diagram Tool
• PRISMA Flow Diagram Word Template
• << Previous: Schedule a Consultation / Meet our Team
• Next: Types of Evidence Synthesis >>
• Last Updated: Aug 19, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/evidence-synthesis

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

• Zondervan Library
• Research Guides
• Synthesis in Research
• Tips for Article Searches
• Articles through Interlibrary Loan
• Searching for Books & eBooks
• Books through Interlibrary Loan
• Web Resources
• Finding Sources
• Types of Sources
• Searching Tips and Tricks
• Evaluating Sources
• Writing Help
• Citation Styles
• Citation Tools
• Literature Reviews
• Developing & Writing a Speech
• PowerPoint Presentations

What is Synthesis?

Here are some ways to think about synthesis:

Synthesis blends claims, evidence, and your unique insights to create a strong, unified paragraph. Assertions act as the threads, evidence adds texture, and your commentary weaves them together, revealing the connections and why they matter.

Beyond the sum of its parts: Synthesis isn't just adding one and one. It's recognizing how multiple sources, through their connections and relationships, create a deeper understanding than any single one could achieve.

Synthesis isn't just about what sources say, it's about how they say it. By digging into assumptions, interpretations, and even speculations, you uncover hidden connections and build a more nuanced picture.

Whereas analyzing involves dismantling a whole to understand its parts and their relationships, synthesizing involves collecting diverse parts and weaving them together to form a novel whole. Reading is an automatic synthesis process, where we connect incoming information with our existing knowledge, constructing a new, expanded "whole" of our understanding in the subject area.

You've been doing synthesis for a long time, the key now is being aware and organized in the process.

• Sharpen your research direction: Be clear about your main objective. This guides your reading and analysis to make the most of your time.
• Build a strong foundation: Use trusted sources like peer-reviewed journals, academic books, and reputable websites. Diverse sources add strength and credibility to your research.

Then Organize your Research:

• Dig deep and connect the dots: While reading, highlight key ideas, arguments, and evidence. Mark potential links between sources, like overlaps or contrasting arguments.
• Organize ideas by neighborhood: Group sources with similar themes or angles on your topic. This will show you where sources agree or clash, helping you build a nuanced understanding.
• Build a mind map of your research: Create a table of key themes, listing key points from each source and how they connect. This visual map can reveal patterns and identify any missing pieces in your research.

Finally, Build your synthesis:

• Lay out the groundwork: Kick off each section with a clear claim or theme to guide your analysis.
• Weave sources together: Briefly explain what each source brings to the table, smoothly connecting their ideas with transitions and language.
• Embrace the debate: Don't tiptoe around differences. Point out where sources agree or clash, and explore possible reasons for these discrepancies.
• Dig deeper than surface facts: Don't just parrot findings. Explain what they mean and how they impact your topic.
• Add your voice to the mix: Go beyond reporting. Analyze, evaluate, and draw conclusions based on your synthesis. What does this research tell us?

Tips & Tricks:

• Let the evidence do the talking: Back up your claims with concrete details, quotes, and examples from your sources. No need for personal opinions, just let the facts speak for themselves.
• Play fair with opposing views: Be objective and present different perspectives without showing favoritism. Even if you disagree, let readers see the other side of the coin.
• Give credit where credit is due: Make sure your sources get the recognition they deserve with proper citations, following your chosen style guide consistently.
• Polish your masterpiece: Take some time to revise and proofread your work. Ensure your arguments are crystal clear, concise, and well-supported by the evidence.
• Embrace the growth mindset: Remember, research and synthesis are a journey, not a destination. Keep refining your analysis as you learn more and encounter new information. The more you explore, the deeper your understanding will become.

Demonstrates how two or more sources agree with one another.

The collaborative nature of writing tutorials has been discussed by scholars like Andrea Lunsford (1991) and Stephen North (1984). In these essays, they explore the usefulness and the complexities of collaboration between tutors and students in writing center contexts.

Demonstrates how two or more sources support a main point in different ways.

While some scholars like Berlin (1987) have primarily placed their focus on the histories of large, famous universities, other scholars like Yahner and Murdick (1991) have found value in connecting their local histories to contrast or highlight trends found in bigger-name universities.

Accumulation

Demonstrates how one source builds on the idea of another.

Although North’s (1984) essay is fundamental to many writing centers today, Lunsford (1991) takes his ideas a step further by identifying different writing center models and also expanding North’s ideas on how writing centers can help students become better writers.

Demonstrates how one source discusses the effects of another source’s ideas.

While Healy (2001) notes the concerns of having primarily email appointments in writing centers, he also notes that constraints like funding, resources, and time affect how online resources are formed. For writing centers, email is the most economical and practical option for those wanting to offer online services but cannot dedicate the time or money to other online tutoring methods. As a result, in Neaderheiser and Wolfe’s (2009) reveals that of all the online options available in higher education, over 91% of institutions utilize online tutoring through email, meaning these constraints significantly affect the types of services writing centers offer.

[Taken from University of Illinois, "Synthesizing Research "]

The Writing Center at University of Arizona showcases how to create and use a synthesis matrix when reading sources and taking notes. It is a great, organized way to synthesize your research.

You can find it here .

Creativity in researching begins with developing a thorough understanding of your research topic; this is fundamental to streamlining the process and enriching your findings. This entails delving into its intricacies—exploring both similarities and divergences with related subject areas. Consider the most appropriate sources (and types of sources) for your study, critically engaging with all perspectives, and acknowledging the complex interplay between its positives, negatives, and broader connections.

Embrace interdisciplinary exploration. Delve deeper through transdisciplinary analysis, venturing beyond the immediate field to parallel professions and diverse academic arenas. Consider comparative studies from other cultural contexts to add fresh perspectives.

For example, researching rule changes in the NFL demands a nuanced approach. One might investigate the link to Traumatic Brain Injury, analyze case studies of impacted players, and even examine rule adjustments in other sports, drawing insights from their rationale and outcomes.

Remember, librarians are invaluable partners in this process. Their expertise in creative thinking and resource navigation can unlock a wealth of information, guiding you towards fruitful discoveries.

• << Previous: Evaluating Sources
• Next: Writing & Citing >>
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 12:01 PM
• URL: https://library.taylor.edu/psychology

Hours Policies Support Services

WorldCat Research Guides Interlibrary Loan (ILL)

Staff Directory Email the Library

Blackboard My Library Account My Taylor

Zondervan Library Taylor University 1846 Main Street, Upland, IN 46989 (765) 998-4357

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Synthesizing Sources

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

When you look for areas where your sources agree or disagree and try to draw broader conclusions about your topic based on what your sources say, you are engaging in synthesis. Writing a research paper usually requires synthesizing the available sources in order to provide new insight or a different perspective into your particular topic (as opposed to simply restating what each individual source says about your research topic).

Note that synthesizing is not the same as summarizing.  

• A summary restates the information in one or more sources without providing new insight or reaching new conclusions.
• A synthesis draws on multiple sources to reach a broader conclusion.

There are two types of syntheses: explanatory syntheses and argumentative syntheses . Explanatory syntheses seek to bring sources together to explain a perspective and the reasoning behind it. Argumentative syntheses seek to bring sources together to make an argument. Both types of synthesis involve looking for relationships between sources and drawing conclusions.

In order to successfully synthesize your sources, you might begin by grouping your sources by topic and looking for connections. For example, if you were researching the pros and cons of encouraging healthy eating in children, you would want to separate your sources to find which ones agree with each other and which ones disagree.

After you have a good idea of what your sources are saying, you want to construct your body paragraphs in a way that acknowledges different sources and highlights where you can draw new conclusions.

As you continue synthesizing, here are a few points to remember:

• Don’t force a relationship between sources if there isn’t one. Not all of your sources have to complement one another.
• Do your best to highlight the relationships between sources in very clear ways.
• Don’t ignore any outliers in your research. It’s important to take note of every perspective (even those that disagree with your broader conclusions).

Example Syntheses

Below are two examples of synthesis: one where synthesis is NOT utilized well, and one where it is.

Parents are always trying to find ways to encourage healthy eating in their children. Elena Pearl Ben-Joseph, a doctor and writer for KidsHealth , encourages parents to be role models for their children by not dieting or vocalizing concerns about their body image. The first popular diet began in 1863. William Banting named it the “Banting” diet after himself, and it consisted of eating fruits, vegetables, meat, and dry wine. Despite the fact that dieting has been around for over a hundred and fifty years, parents should not diet because it hinders children’s understanding of healthy eating.

In this sample paragraph, the paragraph begins with one idea then drastically shifts to another. Rather than comparing the sources, the author simply describes their content. This leads the paragraph to veer in an different direction at the end, and it prevents the paragraph from expressing any strong arguments or conclusions.

An example of a stronger synthesis can be found below.

Parents are always trying to find ways to encourage healthy eating in their children. Different scientists and educators have different strategies for promoting a well-rounded diet while still encouraging body positivity in children. David R. Just and Joseph Price suggest in their article “Using Incentives to Encourage Healthy Eating in Children” that children are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables if they are given a reward (855-856). Similarly, Elena Pearl Ben-Joseph, a doctor and writer for Kids Health , encourages parents to be role models for their children. She states that “parents who are always dieting or complaining about their bodies may foster these same negative feelings in their kids. Try to keep a positive approach about food” (Ben-Joseph). Martha J. Nepper and Weiwen Chai support Ben-Joseph’s suggestions in their article “Parents’ Barriers and Strategies to Promote Healthy Eating among School-age Children.” Nepper and Chai note, “Parents felt that patience, consistency, educating themselves on proper nutrition, and having more healthy foods available in the home were important strategies when developing healthy eating habits for their children.” By following some of these ideas, parents can help their children develop healthy eating habits while still maintaining body positivity.

In this example, the author puts different sources in conversation with one another. Rather than simply describing the content of the sources in order, the author uses transitions (like "similarly") and makes the relationship between the sources evident.

A Guide to Evidence Synthesis: Types of Evidence Synthesis

• Meet Our Team
• Our Published Reviews and Protocols
• What is Evidence Synthesis?

Types of Evidence Synthesis

• Evidence Synthesis Across Disciplines
• Finding and Appraising Existing Systematic Reviews
• 0. Develop a Protocol
• 1. Draft your Research Question
• 2. Select Databases
• 3. Select Grey Literature Sources
• 4. Write a Search Strategy
• 5. Register a Protocol
• 6. Translate Search Strategies
• 7. Citation Management
• 8. Article Screening
• 9. Risk of Bias Assessment
• 10. Data Extraction
• 11. Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Evidence Synthesis Institute for Librarians
• Open Access Evidence Synthesis Resources

Video: Exploring different review methodologies (3:25 minutes)

Evidence synthesis refers to  any method of identifying, selecting, and combining results from multiple studies . For help selecting a methodology, try our review methodology decision tree. Types of evidence synthesis include: 

​​ Systematic Review

• Systematically and transparently collect and  categorize  existing evidence on a broad question of scientific,  policy or management importance.
• Compares, evaluates, and synthesizes evidence in a search for the effect of an intervention. 
• Time-intensive and often take months to a year or more to complete. 
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis. Sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews.

​​ Literature (Narrative) Review

• A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology. 
• Search strategies, comprehensiveness, and time range covered will vary and do not follow an established protocol.

​ Scoping Review or Evidence Map

• Seeks to identify research gaps and opportunities for evidence synthesis rather than searching for the effect of an intervention. 
• May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would. (see  EE Journal  and  CIFOR )
• May take longer than a systematic review.
• See  Arksey and O'Malley (2005)  for methodological guidance.

​ Rapid Review

• Applies Systematic Review methodology within a time-constrained setting.
• Employs methodological "shortcuts" (limiting search terms for example) at the risk of introducing bias.
• Useful for addressing issues needing quick decisions, such as developing policy recommendations.
• See  Evidence Summaries: The Evolution of a Rapid Review Approach

Umbrella Review

• Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic. 
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review.
• Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider.

Meta-analysis

• Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies.
• Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results.
• May be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review.
• << Previous: What is Evidence Synthesis?
• Next: Evidence Synthesis Across Disciplines >>
• Last Updated: Aug 5, 2024 2:03 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis

• USU Library

Synthesis: Home

Engaging in synthesis.

Synthesis requires you to make sense of all the relevant ideas in your sources and blend them together with your own thoughts and ideas. Watch this video to learn how to engage in synthesis in order to take research from multiple sources along with your own arguments and turn it into a research paper.

Synthesizing Your Research

Understanding your research.

1. Read through your sources carefully.

2. Identify common themes or sub-topics that keep appearing in the articles you’re reading.

The Research Matrix

• Blank Research Matrix Fill out this blank matrix.
• Blank Synthesis Matrix template (Google Docs)

The research matrix is a helpful tool you can use to synthesize your research along with your own voice. The blank research matrix above can help you organize your paper by main idea, identify connections between your sources, and add your own analysis.

Filling Out Your Matrix

1. Write your topic or research question above the matrix.

2. Write your main ideas for your paper on the left side of the matrix. Helpful Tip: Choose your main ideas AFTER you have read your sources!

3. Write the title, author, or citation of each source in the top row of the matrix.

4. Fill in the matrix boxes with a paraphrase or direct quote that represents how the source discussed that main idea. You do not need every source to address every main idea!

5. Don't forget to nclude your own analysis of the main idea and the sources in the last column on the matrix.

Identify Gaps in Your Research

1. There’s a high likelihood that you will have empty spaces on your research matrix and that’s okay! Small gaps show that there is room for your own voice to join the conversation.

2. Large gaps in your matrix are often a sign that you need to do more research on that main idea. As a rule of thumb you should have at least two sources for each main idea in order to create a meaningful dialogue. 

• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2023 1:12 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usu.edu/synthesizing_info

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Synthesis in Research: Home

What is synthesis?

Synthesizing information is the opposite of analyzing information. When you read an article or book, you have to pull out specific concepts from the larger document in order to understand it. This is analyzing.

When you synthesize information, you take specific concepts and consider them together to understand how they compare/contrast and how they relate to one another. Synthesis involves combining multiple elements to create a whole.

In regard to course assignments, the  elements  refer to the outside sources you've gathered to support the ideas you want to present. The  whole  then becomes your conclusion(s) about those sources.

How do I synthesize information?

Note: These steps offer a guideline, but do what works for you best.

• This is where you really decide if you want to read specific materials
• If you have gathered a substantial amount of literature and reading all of it would prove overwhelming, read the abstracts to get a better idea of the content, then select the materials that would best support your assignment
• Describe and analyze the findings and/or the author's main ideas
• What's the author's message?
• What evidence do they use to support their message?
• What does the author want a reader to understand?
• What is the larger impact of the author's message?
• Compare and contrast the main ideas and other pertinent information you found in each source
• Evaluate the quality and significance of these main ideas
• Interpret the main ideas in the context of your research question or assignment topic
• This is the step where your synthesis of the information will lead to logical conclusions about that information
• These conclusions should speak directly to your research question (i.e. your question should have an answer)

I would like to give credit to Aultman Health Sciences Library.  Most of the information used to create this guide is from their English Research libguide .

• Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 2:29 PM
• URL: https://library.defiance.edu/synthesis

Pilgrim Library :   

   419-783-2481      ,    library@ defiance.edu       ,   click the purple "ask us" side tab above.

• University of Texas Libraries
• UT Libraries

Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis Methods

• Types of Reviews
• Formulate Question
• Find Existing Reviews & Protocols
• Register a Protocol
• Searching Systematically
• Supplementary Searching
• Managing Results
• Deduplication
• Critical Appraisal
• Glossary of terms
• Librarian Support
• Video tutorials This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis Boot Camp

Once you have completed your analysis, you will want to both summarize and synthesize those results. You may have a qualitative synthesis, a quantitative synthesis, or both.

Qualitative Synthesis

In a qualitative synthesis, you describe for readers how the pieces of your work fit together. You will summarize, compare, and contrast the characteristics and findings, exploring the relationships between them. Further, you will discuss the relevance and applicability of the evidence to your research question. You will also analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the body of evidence. Focus on where the gaps are in the evidence and provide recommendations for further research.

Quantitative Synthesis

Whether or not your Systematic Review includes a full meta-analysis, there is typically some element of data analysis. The quantitative synthesis combines and analyzes the evidence using statistical techniques. This includes comparing methodological similarities and differences and potentially the quality of the studies conducted.

Summarizing vs. Synthesizing

In a systematic review, researchers do more than summarize findings from identified articles. You will synthesize the information you want to include.

While a summary is a way of concisely relating important themes and elements from a larger work or works in a condensed form, a synthesis takes the information from a variety of works and combines them together to create something new.

Synthesis :

"The goal of a systematic synthesis of qualitative research is to integrate or compare the results across studies in order to increase understanding of a particular phenomenon, not to add studies together. Typically the aim is to identify broader themes or new theories – qualitative syntheses usually result in a narrative summary of cross-cutting or emerging themes or constructs, and/or conceptual models."

Denner, J., Marsh, E. & Campe, S. (2017). Approaches to reviewing research in education. In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, & E. Smith (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE Handbook of educational research (Vol. 2, pp. 143-164). doi: 10.4135/9781473983953.n7

• Approaches to Reviewing Research in Education from Sage Knowledge

Data synthesis  (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidebook)

Interpreting findings and and reporting conduct   (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidebook)

Interpreting results and drawing conclusions  (Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 15)

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews  (ESRC Methods Programme)

• Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 8:26 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/systematicreviews

Jump to navigation

Cochrane Training

Chapter 9: summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis.

Joanne E McKenzie, Sue E Brennan, Rebecca E Ryan, Hilary J Thomson, Renea V Johnston

Key Points:

• Synthesis is a process of bringing together data from a set of included studies with the aim of drawing conclusions about a body of evidence. This will include synthesis of study characteristics and, potentially, statistical synthesis of study findings.
• A general framework for synthesis can be used to guide the process of planning the comparisons, preparing for synthesis, undertaking the synthesis, and interpreting and describing the results.
• Tabulation of study characteristics aids the examination and comparison of PICO elements across studies, facilitates synthesis of these characteristics and grouping of studies for statistical synthesis.
• Tabulation of extracted data from studies allows assessment of the number of studies contributing to a particular meta-analysis, and helps determine what other statistical synthesis methods might be used if meta-analysis is not possible.

Cite this chapter as: McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, Thomson HJ, Johnston RV. Chapter 9: Summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

9.1 Introduction

Synthesis is a process of bringing together data from a set of included studies with the aim of drawing conclusions about a body of evidence. Most Cochrane Reviews on the effects of interventions will include some type of statistical synthesis. Most commonly this is the statistical combination of results from two or more separate studies (henceforth referred to as meta-analysis) of effect estimates.

An examination of the included studies always precedes statistical synthesis in Cochrane Reviews. For example, examination of the interventions studied is often needed to itemize their content so as to determine which studies can be grouped in a single synthesis. More broadly, synthesis of the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome) elements of the included studies underpins interpretation of review findings and is an important output of the review in its own right. This synthesis should encompass the characteristics of the interventions and comparators in included studies, the populations and settings in which the interventions were evaluated, the outcomes assessed, and the strengths and weaknesses of the body of evidence.

Chapter 2 defined three types of PICO criteria that may be helpful in understanding decisions that need to be made at different stages in the review:

• The review PICO (planned at the protocol stage) is the PICO on which eligibility of studies is based (what will be included and what excluded from the review).
• The PICO for each synthesis (also planned at the protocol stage) defines the question that the specific synthesis aims to answer, determining how the synthesis will be structured, specifying planned comparisons (including intervention and comparator groups, any grouping of outcome and population subgroups).
• The PICO of the included studies (determined at the review stage) is what was actually investigated in the included studies.

In this chapter, we focus on the PICO for each synthesis and the PICO of the included studies , as the basis for determining which studies can be grouped for statistical synthesis and for synthesizing study characteristics. We describe the preliminary steps undertaken before performing the statistical synthesis. Methods for the statistical synthesis are described in Chapter 10 , Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 .

9.2 A general framework for synthesis

Box 9.2.a A general framework for synthesis that can be applied irrespective of the methods used to synthesize results

Box 9.2.a provides a general framework for synthesis that can be applied irrespective of the methods used to synthesize results. Planning for the synthesis should start at protocol-writing stage, and Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 describe the steps involved in planning the review questions and comparisons between intervention groups. These steps included specifying which characteristics of the interventions, populations, outcomes and study design would be grouped together for synthesis (the PICO for each synthesis: stage 1 in Box 9.2.a ).

This chapter primarily concerns stage 2 of the general framework in Box 9.2.a . After deciding which studies will be included in the review and extracting data, review authors can start implementing their plan, working through steps 2.1 to 2.5 of the framework. This process begins with a detailed examination of the characteristics of each study (step 2.1), and then comparison of characteristics across studies in order to determine which studies are similar enough to be grouped for synthesis (step 2.2). Examination of the type of data available for synthesis follows (step 2.3). These three steps inform decisions about whether any modification to the planned comparisons or outcomes is necessary, or new comparisons are needed (step 2.4). The last step of the framework covered in this chapter involves synthesis of the characteristics of studies contributing to each comparison (step 2.5). The chapter concludes with practical tips for checking data before synthesis (Section 9.4 ).

Steps 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 involve analysis and synthesis of mainly qualitative information about study characteristics. The process used to undertake these steps is rarely described in reviews, yet can require many subjective decisions about the nature and similarity of the PICO elements of the included studies. The examples described in this section illustrate approaches for making this process more transparent.

9.3 Preliminary steps of a synthesis

9.3.1 summarize the characteristics of each study (step 2.1).

A starting point for synthesis is to summarize the PICO characteristics of each study (i.e. the PICO of the included studies, see Chapter 3 ) and categorize these PICO elements in the groups (or domains) pre-specified in the protocol (i.e. the PICO for each synthesis). The resulting descriptions are reported in the ‘Characteristics of included studies’ table, and are used in step 2.2 to determine which studies can be grouped for synthesis.

In some reviews, the labels and terminology used in each study are retained when describing the PICO elements of the included studies. This may be sufficient in areas with consistent and widely understood terminology that matches the PICO for each synthesis. However, in most areas, terminology is variable, making it difficult to compare the PICO of each included study to the PICO for each synthesis, or to compare PICO elements across studies. Standardizing the description of PICO elements across studies facilitates these comparisons. This standardization includes applying the labels and terminology used to articulate the PICO for each synthesis ( Chapter 3 ), and structuring the description of PICO elements. The description of interventions can be structured using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDIeR) checklist, for example (see Chapter 3 and Table 9.3.a ).

Table 9.3.a illustrates the use of pre-specified groups to categorize and label interventions in a review of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy (Chamberlain et al 2017). The main intervention strategy in each study was categorized into one of six groups: counselling, health education, feedback, incentive-based interventions, social support, and exercise. This categorization determined which studies were eligible for each comparison (e.g. counselling versus usual care; single or multi-component strategy). The extract from the ‘Characteristics of included studies’ table shows the diverse descriptions of interventions in three of the 54 studies for which the main intervention was categorized as ‘counselling’. Other intervention characteristics, such as duration and frequency, were coded in pre-specified categories to standardize description of the intervention intensity and facilitate meta-regression (not shown here).

Table 9.3.a Example of categorizing interventions into pre-defined groups

* The definition also specified eligible modes of delivery, intervention duration and personnel.

While this example focuses on categorizing and describing interventions according to groups pre-specified in the PICO for each synthesis, the same approach applies to other PICO elements.

9.3.2 Determine which studies are similar enough to be grouped within each comparison (step 2.2)

Once the PICO of included studies have been coded using labels and descriptions specified in the PICO for each synthesis, it will be possible to compare PICO elements across studies and determine which studies are similar enough to be grouped within each comparison.

Tabulating study characteristics can help to explore and compare PICO elements across studies, and is particularly important for reviews that are broad in scope, have diversity across one or more PICO elements, or include large numbers of studies. Data about study characteristics can be ordered in many different ways (e.g. by comparison or by specific PICO elements), and tables may include information about one or more PICO elements. Deciding on the best approach will depend on the purpose of the table and the stage of the review. A close examination of study characteristics will require detailed tables; for example, to identify differences in characteristics that were pre-specified as potentially important modifiers of the intervention effects. As the review progresses, this detail may be replaced by standardized description of PICO characteristics (e.g. the coding of counselling interventions presented in Table 9.3.a ).

Table 9.3.b illustrates one approach to tabulating study characteristics to enable comparison and analysis across studies. This table presents a high-level summary of the characteristics that are most important for determining which comparisons can be made. The table was adapted from tables presented in a review of self-management education programmes for osteoarthritis (Kroon et al 2014). The authors presented a structured summary of intervention and comparator groups for each study, and then categorized intervention components thought to be important for enabling patients to manage their own condition. Table 9.3.b shows selected intervention components, the comparator, and outcomes measured in a subset of studies (some details are fictitious). Outcomes have been grouped by the outcome domains ‘Pain’ and ‘Function’ (column ‘Outcome measure’ Table 9.3.b ). These pre-specified outcome domains are the chosen level for the synthesis as specified in the PICO for each synthesis. Authors will need to assess whether the measurement methods or tools used within each study provide an appropriate assessment of the domains ( Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4 ). A next step is to group each measure into the pre-specified time points. In this example, outcomes are grouped into short-term (<6 weeks) and long-term follow-up (≥6 weeks to 12 months) (column ‘Time points (time frame)’ Table 9.3.b ).

Variations on the format shown in Table 9.3.b can be presented within a review to summarize the characteristics of studies contributing to each synthesis, which is important for interpreting findings (step 2.5).

Table 9.3.b Table of study characteristics illustrating similarity of PICO elements across studies

BEH = health-directed behaviour; CON = constructive attitudes and approaches; EMO = emotional well-being; ENG = positive and active engagement in life; MON = self-monitoring and insight; NAV = health service navigation; SKL = skill and technique acquisition. ANCOVA = Analysis of covariance; CI = confidence interval; IQR = interquartile range; MD = mean difference; SD = standard deviation; SE = standard error, NS = non-significant. Pain and function measures: Dutch AIMS-SF = Dutch short form of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales; HAQ = Health Assessment Questionnaire; VAS = visual analogue scale; WOMAC = Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. 1 Ordered by type of comparator; 2 Short-term (denoted ‘immediate’ in the review Kroon et al (2014)) follow-up is defined as <6 weeks, long-term follow-up (denoted ‘intermediate’ in the review) is ≥6 weeks to 12 months; 3 For simplicity, in this example the available data are assumed to be the same for all outcomes within an outcome domain within a study. In practice, this is unlikely and the available data would likely vary by outcome; 4 Indicates that an effect estimate and its standard error may be computed through imputation of missing statistics, methods to convert between statistics (e.g. medians to means) or contact with study authors. *Indicates the selected outcome when there was multiplicity in the outcome domain and time frame.

9.3.3 Determine what data are available for synthesis (step 2.3)

Once the studies that are similar enough to be grouped together within each comparison have been determined, a next step is to examine what data are available for synthesis. Tabulating the measurement tools and time frames as shown in Table 9.3.b allows assessment of the potential for multiplicity (i.e. when multiple outcomes within a study and outcome domain are available for inclusion ( Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4.3 )). In this example, multiplicity arises in two ways. First, from multiple measurement instruments used to measure the same outcome domain within the same time frame (e.g. ‘Short-term Pain’ is measured using the ‘Pain VAS’ and ‘Pain on walking VAS’ scales in study 3). Second, from multiple time points measured within the same time frame (e.g. ‘Short-term Pain’ is measured using ‘Pain VAS’ at both 2 weeks and 1 month in study 6). Pre-specified methods to deal with the multiplicity can then be implemented (see Table 9.3.c for examples of approaches for dealing with multiplicity). In this review, the authors pre-specified a set of decision rules for selecting specific outcomes within the outcome domains. For example, for the outcome domain ‘Pain’, the selected outcome was the highest on the following list: global pain, pain on walking, WOMAC pain subscore, composite pain scores other than WOMAC, pain on activities other than walking, rest pain or pain during the night. The authors further specified that if there were multiple time points at which the outcome was measured within a time frame, they would select the longest time point. The selected outcomes from applying these rules to studies 3 and 6 are indicated by an asterisk in Table 9.3.b .

Table 9.3.b also illustrates an approach to tabulating the extracted data. The available statistics are tabulated in the column labelled ‘Data’, from which an assessment can be made as to whether the study contributes the required data for a meta-analysis (column ‘Effect & SE’) ( Chapter 10 ). For example, of the seven studies comparing health-directed behaviour (BEH) with usual care, six measured ‘Short-term Pain’, four of which contribute required data for meta-analysis. Reordering the table by comparison, outcome and time frame, will more readily show the number of studies that will contribute to a particular meta-analysis, and help determine what other synthesis methods might be used if the data available for meta-analysis are limited.

Table 9.3.c Examples of approaches for selecting one outcome (effect estimate) for inclusion in a synthesis.* Adapted from López-López et al (2018)

9.3.4 Determine if modification to the planned comparisons or outcomes is necessary, or new comparisons are needed (step 2.4)

The previous steps may reveal the need to modify the planned comparisons. Important variations in the intervention may be identified leading to different or modified intervention groups. Few studies or sparse data, or both, may lead to different groupings of interventions, populations or outcomes. Planning contingencies for anticipated scenarios is likely to lead to less post-hoc decision making ( Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 ); however, it is difficult to plan for all scenarios. In the latter circumstance, the rationale for any post-hoc changes should be reported. This approach was adopted in a review examining the effects of portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco (Hollands et al 2015). After preliminary examination of the outcome data, the review authors changed their planned intervention groups. They judged that intervention groups based on ‘size’ and those based on ‘shape’ of the products were not conceptually comparable, and therefore should form separate comparisons. The authors provided a rationale for the change and noted that it was a post-hoc decision.

9.3.5 Synthesize the characteristics of the studies contributing to each comparison (step 2.5)

A final step, and one that is essential for interpreting combined effects, is to synthesize the characteristics of studies contributing to each comparison. This description should integrate information about key PICO characteristics across studies, and identify any potentially important differences in characteristics that were pre-specified as possible effect modifiers. The synthesis of study characteristics is also needed for GRADE assessments, informing judgements about whether the evidence applies directly to the review question (indirectness) and analyses conducted to examine possible explanations for heterogeneity (inconsistency) (see Chapter 14 ).

Tabulating study characteristics is generally preferable to lengthy description in the text, since the structure imposed by a table can make it easier and faster for readers to scan and identify patterns in the information presented. Table 9.3.b illustrates one such approach. Tabulating characteristics of studies that contribute to each comparison can also help to improve the transparency of decisions made around grouping of studies, while also ensuring that studies that do not contribute to the combined effect are accounted for.

9.4 Checking data before synthesis

Before embarking on a synthesis, it is important to be confident that the findings from the individual studies have been collated correctly. Therefore, review authors must compare the magnitude and direction of effects reported by studies with how they are to be presented in the review. This is a reasonably straightforward way for authors to check a number of potential problems, including typographical errors in studies’ reports, accuracy of data collection and manipulation, and data entry into RevMan. For example, the direction of a standardized mean difference may accidentally be wrong in the review. A basic check is to ensure the same qualitative findings (e.g. direction of effect and statistical significance) between the data as presented in the review and the data as available from the original study.

Results in forest plots should agree with data in the original report (point estimate and confidence interval) if the same effect measure and statistical model is used. There are legitimate reasons for differences, however, including: using a different measure of intervention effect; making different choices between change-from-baseline measures, post-intervention measures alone or post-intervention measures adjusted for baseline values; grouping similar intervention groups; or making adjustments for unit-of-analysis errors in the reports of the primary studies.

9.5 Types of synthesis

The focus of this chapter has been describing the steps involved in implementing the planned comparisons between intervention groups (stage 2 of the general framework for synthesis ( Box 9.2.a )). The next step (stage 3) is often performing a statistical synthesis. Meta-analysis of effect estimates, and its extensions have many advantages. There are circumstances under which a meta-analysis is not possible, however, and other statistical synthesis methods might be considered, so as to make best use of the available data. Available summary and synthesis methods, along with the questions they address and examples of associated plots, are described in Table 9.5.a . Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 discuss meta-analysis (of effect estimate) methods, while Chapter 12 focuses on the other statistical synthesis methods, along with approaches to tabulating, visually displaying and providing a structured presentation of the findings. An important part of planning the analysis strategy is building in contingencies to use alternative methods when the desired method cannot be used.

Table 9.5.a Overview of available methods for summary and synthesis

9.6 Chapter information

Authors: Joanne E McKenzie, Sue E Brennan, Rebecca E Ryan, Hilary J Thomson, Renea V Johnston

Acknowledgements: Sections of this chapter build on Chapter 9 of version 5.1 of the Handbook , with editors Jonathan Deeks, Julian Higgins and Douglas Altman. We are grateful to Julian Higgins, James Thomas and Tianjing Li for commenting helpfully on earlier drafts.

Funding: JM is supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1143429). SB and RR’s positions are supported by the NHMRC Cochrane Collaboration Funding Program. HT is funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017-13 and MC_UU_12017-15) and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13 and SPHSU15). RJ’s position is supported by the NHMRC Cochrane Collaboration Funding Program and Cabrini Institute.

9.7 References

Chamberlain C, O’Mara-Eves A, Porter J, Coleman T, Perlen SM, Thomas J, McKenzie JE. Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017; 2 : CD001055.

Hollands GJ, Shemilt I, Marteau TM, Jebb SA, Lewis HB, Wei Y, Higgins JPT, Ogilvie D. Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015; 9 : CD011045.

Kroon FPB, van der Burg LRA, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Johnston RV, Pitt V. Self-management education programmes for osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014; 1 : CD008963.

López-López JA, Page MJ, Lipsey MW, Higgins JPT. Dealing with effect size multiplicity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods 2018; 9 : 336–351.

For permission to re-use material from the Handbook (either academic or commercial), please see here for full details.

Evidence Synthesis & Systematic Reviews

• About Evidence Synthesis & Systematic Reviews
• What Types of Evidence Synthesis Are There?

How Do I Conduct Evidence Synthesis?

• What Software and Guidance Exists to Help Me Conduct an Evidence Synthesis?
• How Can Librarians Help?
• Submit an Application for Librarian Expert Assistance

We've broken down the steps of evidence synthesis into four very general areas: 

• Background and Prep Work
• Gather Information
• Synthesize Information
• Write Up Report

A systematic review, one of the common forms of evidence synthesis, will  take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. 

Remember: these steps are at a conceptual level, and are highly generalized. Be sure to seek appropriate guidance and mentorship when conducting your evidence synthesis. 

Links to more complete steps for conducting evidence synthesis can be found under the What Software and Guidance Exists to Help Me Conduct an Evidence Synthesis  tab. 

Step 1. Background and Prep Work

Your first step is to prepare to conduct an evidence synthesis. 

You will need to approach this from a couple of different angles -- the human component and the protocol component. 

The human component of evidence synthesis: 

Evidence synthesis can only be accomplished with a team. You'll need at least three people on your team. 

Your team might be bigger than three, depending on the goals of your work. For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis might benefit from a statistician as a member of your team. 

The protocol component of evidence synthesis: 

Ultimately, you should  develop a protocol for your evidence synthesis.

Protocols do many important things: 

• Help you create a solid question with an achievable scope
• Ensure everyone on your team is on the same page
• Smooth out points of disagreement before getting deep into the project
• Give you guidance and milestones
• Improve reproducibility and reduce bias
• Improve the likelihood your work will be published

Many journals, including PLoS journals, BMJ and BMJ Open, Systematic Reviews, BioMed Central, and others, strongly encourage pre-registration of the review process . 

PRISMA-P offers guidance on how to write a robust protocol . Be sure to read the Explanation and Elaboration paper along with reviewing the checklist . 

You should also search to see if similar projects area already underway . OSF Registries and  PROSPERO are two common places to look for registered protocols. This helps ensure your evidence synthesis is novel, and reduces duplication of work.

Step 2. Gather Information

The data you  analyze for your evidence synthesis is made up of the articles you find. That's why the search component is so important -- and so time consuming. It can take a few weeks to a few months to create a systematic search.

Searches should be exhaustive.   A systematic search for an evidence synthesis project must capture all articles relevant to your question. Poorly constructed searches yield poor results, missing relevant articles. A good search will use a combination of thesaurus terms, free text terms, synonyms, variations, Boolean operators, follow appropriate search syntax, and more.  

Librarians are expert searchers and have a deep expertise across databases. They document searches and follow best practices for constructing a search. Documentation improves the reproducibility and reliability of your evidence synthesis, and is a critical component of your write-up.

Step 3. Synthesize Information

After you have collected your data (composed of all the articles you locate from your searches), you need to synthesize your findings. 

Generally, your next steps entail: 

• Selecting articles for inclusion in your analysis. You and your team members will screen all the articles based on the rules you set up in your protocol. This step begins with a title/abstract screening to remove clearly unrelated studies, then moves to screening full-text studies.
• Extracting the data from the articles. Data extraction is done by hand and by filling in a pre-prepared form with important points.
• Evaluating  for Risk of Bias and quality. You will assess the studies you selected to include in your study for any biases in the studies and their quality. Depending on your discipline and your study, different types of evaluation frameworks and checklists already exist.  

At a minimum, at least two people will screen each article. When there is a disagreement on whether or not to include an article, the third person will be the tie-breaker. Extracting and evaluating should be done by members of the team who are trained on the criteria.  

Step 4. Write up report

Evidence Synthesis also follows a standard reporting mechanism.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) is one such mechanism, and is endorsed by numerous journals . Some journals require you to follow the PRISMA standard in order for your manuscript to be accepted. For example, PLoS Medicine and Systematic Reviews require submissions follow the PRISMA Statement and include a completed checklist and flow diagram for publication. 

Following PRISMA will help you clearly present your findings and methodology. 

Ready to get started?

Ready to start tackling an evidence synthesis project? 

Check out how a librarian can partner , or fill out our application form !

• << Previous: What Types of Evidence Synthesis Are There?
• Next: What Software and Guidance Exists to Help Me Conduct an Evidence Synthesis? >>
• Last Updated: Aug 23, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/systematic-reviews

Social media

• Instagram for Herman B Wells Library
• Facebook for IU Libraries

Additional resources

Featured databases.

• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) OneSearch@IU
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Academic Search (EBSCO)
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) ERIC (EBSCO)
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Nexis Uni
• Resource available without restriction HathiTrust Digital Library
• Databases A-Z
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Google Scholar
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) JSTOR
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Web of Science
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Scopus
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) WorldCat

IU Libraries

• Diversity Resources
• About IU Libraries
• Alumni & Friends
• Departments & Staff
• Jobs & Libraries HR
• Intranet (Staff)
• IUL site admin

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

UMGC Effective Writing Center Write to Synthesize: The Research Essay

Explore more of umgc.

• Writing Resources

In a synthesis, you bring things together. This combination, integration, or merging creates something new--your synthesis. The action of synthesis is basic to our world. Take, for example, what happens when a single oxygen molecule is combined with two hydrogen molecules. Water is created or synthesized. Hard to get more basic than that.

You also use synthesis to make personal decisions. If two instructors are teaching a class you must take, you may synthesize your past experiences with the teachers to choose the best class for you.

Research Essays:

Thesis driven.

In school, when writing a synthesis from your research, your sources may come from the school's library, a textbook, or the Internet. Here are some important points to keep in mind:

First, regardless of where your sources come from or how many you have, what you write should be driven by a thesis that you devise. After reading and studying your sources, you should form a personal point of view, a slant to connect your sources.

Here's a quick example--Let's say you've read three folktales: Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Little Red Riding Hood, and the Pied Piper--and now you must write a synthesis of them. As you study the three sources, you think about links between them and come up with this thesis: 

Folktales use fear to teach children lessons.

Then you use this thesis to synthesize your three sources as you support your point of view. You combine elements from the three sources to prove and illustrate this thesis. Your support points could focus on the lessons for children:

• Lesson 1 : Never talk to strangers.
• Lesson 2 : Don't wander from home.
• Lesson 3 : Appearances can deceive us.

This step of outlining your thesis and main points is a crucial one when writing a synthesis. If your goal in writing a research essay is to provide readers a unified perspective based on sources, the unified perspective must be clear before the writing begins.

Once the writing begins, your point of view is then carried through to the paragraph and sentence levels. Let's examine some techniques for achieving the unity that a good synthesis requires. First, here’s an example of an unsuccessful attempt at synthesizing sources:

Many sources agree that capital punishment is not a crime deterrent. [This is the idea around which the sources should be unified. Now comes the sources] According to Judy Pennington in an interview with Helen Prejean, crime rates in New Orleans rise for at least eight weeks following executions (110). Jimmy Dunne notes that crime rates often go up in the first two or three months following an execution. “Death in the Americas” argues that America’s crime rate as a whole has increased drastically since the re-instatement of the death penalty in the 1960s. The article notes that 700 crimes are committed for every 100,000 Americans (2). Helen Prejean cites Ellis in her book to note that in 1980, 500,000 people were behind bars and in 1990 that figure rose to 1.1 million (112).

Sample student paragraph adapted from "Literature Review: Synthesizing Multiple Sources." Retrieved 2011 from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/items/7dda80e7-b0b3-477c-a972-283b48cfdf5c

This paragraph certainly uses a number of sources. However, the sources are presented in a random, grocery list fashion. Besides the main point at the beginning, there is no further attempt to synthesize. The sources seem tossed in, like ingredients in a salad. Let's examine a possible revision of that paragraph and how an adequate synthesis might be achieved:

Major studies suggest that capital punishment fails to deter crime. Helen Prejean, in "Deadman Walking," reviews decades of statistics that indicate capital punishment does little to lower crime. [Key idea from  topic sentence—"capital punishment fails to deter crime"— echoed in sentence about source–"capital punishment does little to lower crime." Repetition links source to main idea.] Based on this evidence, Prejean concludes “Executions do not deter crime . . . the U.S. murder rate is no higher in states that do not have the death penalty than those who do” (110). ["Based on this evidence" forces  reader to refer back to "statistics" in previous sentence.] Prejean’s point is reiterated from a historical perspective in Dunne's article “Death in the Americas.”  [This sentence provides a thought bridge between two sources.] Dunne first points out that, despite the social and economic upheavals from 1930 to 1960, crime rates were unchanged (2). [Linking phrase:"Dunne first points out"] However, after the reinstatement of the death penalty in the 1960s, “crime rates soared” (2). [Linking phase "However, Dunne notes."]

The result is a matrix of connective devices that unifies the sources around a key idea stated at the beginning. Although this matrix seems complex, it is actually built on a simple three-point strategy.

• Stay in charge . You the writer must control the sources, using them to serve your purpose. In good synthesis writing, sources are used to support what you, the writer, have already said in your own words.
• Stay focused . Your main point is not merely stated once and left to wilt. Your main idea is repeated and echoed throughout as a way to link the sources, to weave them together into a strong fabric of meaning.
• Stay strategic . Notice the "source sandwich" strategy at work. First, the author sets up the source with its background and relevance to the point. After the source comes a follows up in his/her own words as a way to bridge or link to the next part. In other words, the writer's own words are used like two slices of bread, with the source in the middle.

Follow these simple principles when using sources in your writing and you will achieve the most important goal of synthesis writing--to create a whole greater than its parts.

Our helpful admissions advisors can help you choose an academic program to fit your career goals, estimate your transfer credits, and develop a plan for your education costs that fits your budget. If you’re a current UMGC student, please visit the Help Center .

Personal Information

Contact information, additional information.

By submitting this form, you acknowledge that you intend to sign this form electronically and that your electronic signature is the equivalent of a handwritten signature, with all the same legal and binding effect. You are giving your express written consent without obligation for UMGC to contact you regarding our educational programs and services using e-mail, phone, or text, including automated technology for calls and/or texts to the mobile number(s) provided. For more details, including how to opt out, read our privacy policy or contact an admissions advisor .

Please wait, your form is being submitted.

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

• Resources    
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• News & Media

Synthesizing Sources

What is synthesis  .

In academic writing, a synthesis is to interpret and analyze multiple sources (which may include themes, ideas, or any type of information), and then compare, contrast, and make insightful connections to create a new whole.  A synthesis is not a summary, in that it does not just restate the ideas in each source. Instead, a synthesis aims to make new knowledge that has roots in but is different from original sources.

Why does your course paper, article, dissertation, or thesis need source synthesis?

An effective source synthesis helps you

• gain a greater and deeper understanding of a particular topic
• demonstrate how you join the current academic conversations and scholarship 
• Showcase how you build on/expand/extend/connect to prior work and add your ideas, perspectives, and/or insights to the existing knowledge

How do you synthesize sources?

Synthesis involves (1) quoting, summarizing, and/or paraphrasing the important ideas that are relevant to your research focus from multiple sources; (2) organizing, interpreting, and analyzing them to present the connections (e.g., similar, overlapping, or different ideas/findings) between these sources; (3) incorporating these quotations, summary, and/or paraphrasing of the sources into your work and adding your ideas and/or perspectives.

Summarizing

A summary is to present a large amount of information in a short and concise version of a longer original source. It includes only the most important ideas of the original text and answers basic questions: who, what, where, when, why, and how.

Quoting is an important approach, but don’t overuse it. 

• Choose the quotes whose authors are most distinguished in/for your work
• Combine the quotes with your own interpretation
• Close your text with a new idea or perspective
• Tip—use quote burger to structure your writing: first introduce the quotation, then add the quotation, and lastly explain the quotation

Summarizing Example

Original Text

• “The movement toward education by computer is developing fast. Massive Open Online Courses, called MOOCs, are changing how people learn in many places. For years, people could receive study materials from colleges or universities and take part in online classes. But such classes were not designed for many thousands of students at one time, as MOOCs are.”  Source: (MOOCS Are Moving Forward, Voice of America, learningenglish.voanews.com)

Appropriate Summary

• According to a Voice of America article, a fast-growing MOOCs movement allows thousands to take online classes at once, changing how we learn. Note: The appropriate summary keeps the original main idea, and it is much shorter than the original text .

Quoting Example

Introducing the Quotation

Stivers and Sidnell (2005) describe multimodality as encompassing

• ‘‘the precise ways in which talk, gesture, gaze, and aspects of the material surround are brought together to form coherent courses of action’’ (p. 1).

Explaining the Quotation

• This designation destabilizes a longstanding attitude held by both ordinary speakers and researchers alike that privileges verbal language as the central---or even the only---significant component of face-to-face communication.

Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing requires and shows a more critical engagement with your sources; thus, it is preferable.

• Use your own language to paraphrase the most important and relevant information from your source(s)
• Establish and emphasize your authorial voice/argument in your writing
• Improve the flow and transition in your writing
• Tip—take these steps to structure your paraphrase: read to understand → look for borrowing phrasing → write in your own words → compare with original → cite

Example: 

Read to Understand

“Writers' proficiency in a language will thus be measured not by their ability to produce an abstracted set of conventional forms. Rather, it will be shown by the range of practices they can draw on; their ability to use these creatively” (p. 308).

Look for borrowing phrasing: 

• In their ________ publication, ____ advocate _____ .
• In a detailed analysis of ____, examine_____.

Write in your own words

In their 2011 publication, Horner et al. advocate an approach to writing instruction where a writer's proficiency is demonstrated by the range of practices that the writer can draw on and use creatively.

Compare with original

Synthesizing

Synthesis is to put together what you summarized, quoted, and/or paraphrased in a logical way that connects to your research, add your analysis, interpretation, and/or evaluation of that information, and then conclude by providing your new idea or perspective.

Of all the ways you can get physical exercise, walking is one that people continue long-term (American Heart Association, 2014). However, in the small Wisconsin communities she surveyed, Prince (2013) found that community leaders usually recommend group physical activities that result in short-term weight loss. [analysis]Thus, community leaders are not following evidence-based methods when they suggest fitness methods that the citizens are less likely to continue. [Conclusion]Instead, community leaders should encourage walking programs and group activities with citizens’ long-term benefits rather than short-term weight loss in mind.

Summary, quotation, and/or paraphrasing of sources

A sample wording to use for synthesis: 

• "With reference to __________, X(author) describes ____________ by saying _______________. Y(author), on the other hand, agrees that ________________ but instead concludes that _____________. 

When synthesizing sources, DON’T

• construct the body of your paper out of a series of summaries.
• list your sources one after another. 
• bombard your readers with undifferentiated masses of facts, examples, and quotations.
• begin/end your paragraphs by presenting quotations or facts from your sources.