Interpretive analysis of 85 systematic reviews suggests that narrative syntheses and meta-analyses are incommensurate in argumentation.

ABSTRACT: Using Toulmin's argumentation theory, we analysed the texts of systematic reviews in the area of workplace health promotion to explore differences in the modes of reasoning embedded in reports of narrative synthesis as compared with reports of meta-analysis. We used framework synthesis, grounded theory and cross-case analysis methods to analyse 85 systematic reviews addressing intervention effectiveness in workplace health promotion. Two core categories, or 'modes of reasoning', emerged to frame the contrast between narrative synthesis and meta-analysis: practical-configurational reasoning in narrative synthesis ('what is going on here? What picture emerges?') and inferential-predictive reasoning in meta-analysis ('does it work, and how well? Will it work again?'). Modes of reasoning exami

SUBMITTER: Melendez-Torres GJ 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5347877 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature