Abstract
ABSTRACT The importance of the critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to review quantitative and qualitative research, and to critically develop new theory, is increasingly recognized and evidenced by the increase in published CIS reviews. However, the flexibility embedded in the method hampers its implementation and exacerbates concerns about trustworthiness. This paper seeks to determine the extent of transparent reporting and soundness of execution in published CIS reviews by developing assessment criteria based on CIS key features. We analyzed 77 CIS reviews published between 2006 and 2018 for their reporting practices. Findings indicate that reporting practices of CIS key features are suboptimal. We recommend that authors better document their CIS to increase the transparency of their study and suggest authors to rely on described guidelines to select and conduct their CIS. To this end, our reported evaluation criteria could assist authors, reviewers, and journal editors in their evaluation of the quality of CIS studies.
Highlights
Over the past years, various review types have emerged aiming to synthesize qualitative or quantitative research, or a combination of both
We focus on the highest-ranked features in the hierarchy, since these can be considered as the features that are most central to critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) and allow to differentiate CIS from other review types
We have focused on the reporting practices of CIS reviews and provided an overview of CIS publications since its inception in 2006
Summary
Various review types have emerged aiming to synthesize qualitative or quantitative research, or a combination of both (for an overview of existing review methods, see Schick-Makaroff et al, 2016; Tricco et al, 2016a) This recent availability of new review types, causes confusion as to what designs could be considered as a sound method for reviewing the literature (Templier & Paré, 2017). These misconceptions create discord on what should be reported regarding key methodological aspects, quality, and characteristics of transpar ency of the various review genres (Paré et al, 2016; Templier & Paré, 2017). Authors need to use appropriate processes to search, screen, analyze, and interpret relevant information in order to achieve specified goals (Paré et al, 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
