Better together in evidence synthesis: The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative
Review methodology has exploded since the emergence of systematic reviews in healthcare in the 1970s. We no longer just have systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions, but qualitative systematic reviews, rapid, scoping, integrative reviews and many more.
For example, JBI has nine different types of systematic reviews. If we focus on types of qualitative synthesis, this field alone has 15 different approaches, including thematic synthesis, narrative synthesis and realist synthesis. This situation can be overwhelming for novice (and experienced) reviewers, and they would probably ask the question: what review is right for me? Ultimately, this confusion means we are getting too many reviews conducted for the wrong reasons, increased research waste with unnecessary duplication, and reviews that have little to no impact on practice due to poor quality.
Good quality evidence synthesis is a powerful tool as it can directly impact the care that patients receive. We need to ensure that all reviews are being conducted for the right reasons using the right methods.
This list of the different evidence synthesis types is endless, meaning that it is difficult to both identify and organise all review types to ensure a consistent and coherent message for researchers. The field of methodology keeps growing and responding to the needs of the academic community, funders and decision-makers, with static approaches no longer a viable option. So, we need a living approach to this issue.
Introducing the Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative: an initiative dependent on partnership
This is where the Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative (ESTI) aims to help. At ESTI, we are developing a living evidence taxonomy that will be continuously updated through an online wiki. Our first step is to identify and organise all the current evidence synthesis types across all fields, and organise these into a coherent system that is useful, comprehensive and offers reliable approaches to the conduct and reporting of evidence synthesis.
However, the only way to achieve this objective is through partnership. In fact, without partnership this project will fail. If we think about it, we are not just identifying and organising evidence synthesis types, we are ensuring clarity, consistency and a strong foundation for better evidence. The ripple effects of this are wide-reaching and not just for the academic community. They can impact the evidence that clinicians use to form decisions about the care they deliver, and for patients in the care they receive. As our advisory board member and patient partner, Janice Tufte said:
As a Patient Partner involved with evidence synthesis and generation, I appreciate the vision of the ESTI study as I feel the open collaborative development of Standardized Evidence Taxonomies including public and patients in the process will allow for better understanding of what Evidence in Health care is and why it matters while recognizing that their/our Patient Partner voices make a difference and matter.
The organisation and mapping of these review types can only be achieved through working together as a community. There are far too many review types, and too many different interpretations of how and why to conduct each review. We need consensus through partnership.
This project started with a small number of methodological experts. But as we looked at the scale of this issue and the harm that this confusion is creating, we realised that this is a problem that affects all, not just synthesisers in health. So, we need diverse perspectives, understanding and approaches. We believe that the more collaborators, the better and more useful the Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy will be. The advisory board will be instrumental in providing agreement and clarification on the evidence synthesis typology, therefore, we set out to include as many interested individuals as possible. Initially, individuals were identified through professional networks, but a snowballing approach has occurred now that the work continues to be promoted and our openness to engage with all is being seen. Whenever this work is promoted, we encourage any interested party to contact us and be included in the advisory board.
Currently, the Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Advisory Board has over 100 members and representation from all continents (bar Antarctica!). Our members are diverse in their skills, with many being expert methodologists, patient partners, scientists, clinicians and information specialists. The majority of our experts are in health, and we recognise that we need more diversity in fields – we do have individuals in education, environmental science, geography, pre-clinical, and social sciences.
A large group of collaborators does not come without challenges; for example, the practical challenges of administration and ensuring our email lists stay up-to-date, to issues of equality to ensure all voices are heard and that everyone has opportunities to contribute. We predict future challenges will come in the organisation of the typology (ie, what is the best methodological approach to organise a complex system with so many voices and differing opinions). Right now, we do not have answers, and perhaps once this project is completed, we may even be able to write a case study to promote more large, collaborative and cross field work in methodology. Our current strategy is similar to a systematic review process: be transparent in our decision-making and communication to our advisory members, and be open and respectful to all possibilities and opinions.
The saying that ‘two heads are better than one’ definitely applies to ESTI: we have 100 heads and we want to keep growing.
Reach out to Zachary Munn ([email protected]) and Danielle Pollock ([email protected]) if you are keen to hear more about the Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy project and want to be included within the advisory board.
Authors
Dr Danielle Pollock1, Associate Professor Zachary Munn1.
1. JBI, University of Adelaide
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this World EBHC Day Blog, as well as any errors or omissions, are the sole responsibility of the author and do not represent the views of the World EBHC Day Steering Committee, Official Partners or Sponsors; nor does it imply endorsement by the aforementioned parties.
