Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this State of the Methods, we describe the Mixed Critical Bibliometric Review as a novel knowledge synthesis approach that integrates qualitative research principles from critical reviews with bibliometric analyses to generate interpretive insights. Critical reviews are essential for mapping and advancing a field, yet researchers struggle to critically reassess what is already known. Developing a deep appreciation for a field’s literature and assumptions while simultaneously challenging those same assumptions creates an inherent paradox. Illuminating – and ultimately unlearning – disciplinary knowledge and assumptions is essential, yet doing so is often exceptionally difficult. Combining our expertise in qualitative critical reviews, bibliometric analysis, and mixed methods research, the Mixed Critical Bibliometric Review leverages qualitative research principles common in critical reviews, such as iterative and concurrent data generation and analysis, with bibliometric analyses that can help researchers “zoom out”, check their interpretations, question long-held assumptions, and generate novel insights to move their field forward. To elucidate this approach, we draw on examples from the field of health professions education to describe the defining characteristics of a Mixed Critical Bibliometric Review and describe three methods for enhancing qualitative critical reviews with bibliometric visualizations to clarify: (1) how a field’s perspectives evolve over time, (2) how researchers and their perspectives interconnect, and (3) the relative impact of different perspectives within the field. Finally, we discuss strategies for capturing and representing the unique potential of iteratively integrated qualitative and quantitative findings in a Mixed Critical Bibliometric Review. Through these strategies, we aim to empower researchers to adapt Mixed Critical Bibliometric Review approaches to meet their unique needs, generate novel insights, and build momentum for advancing their field through the complementary and iterative integration of bibliometric and qualitative analyses and findings.

Interconnected computers and software systems have become an indispensable part of people’s lives in the period of digital transformation. Consequently, software quality research is becoming more and more critical. There have been multiple attempts to synthesise knowledge gained in software quality research; however, they were focused mainly on single aspects of software quality and did not structure the knowledge holistically. To fill this gap, we harvested software quality publications indexed in the Scopus bibliographic database. We analysed them using synthetic content analysis which is a triangulation of bibliometrics and content analysis. The search resulted in 15,468 publications. The performance bibliometric analysis showed that the production of research publications relating to software quality is currently following an exponential growth trend and that the software quality research community is growing. The most productive country was the United States, followed by China. The synthetic content analysis revealed that the published knowledge could be structured into six themes, the most important being the themes regarding software quality improvement by enhancing software engineering, advanced software testing and improved defect and fault prediction with machine learning and data mining.

Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, within or across a defined context or contexts. Scoping reviews can contribute to clinical practice guideline development, policy making, reduce research waste by eliminating duplication of research effort, and be a precursor to a systematic review or inform further primary research. This article aims to provide a brief introduction of how to conduct and report scoping reviews. We will discuss the role and value of scoping reviews within the evidence synthesis ecosystem, the differences and similarities between these reviews and other types of evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews, mapping reviews, evidence and gap maps, and overviews, and how to overcome common challenges often associated in the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scoping reviews. Scoping reviews have a role in the evidence ecosystem; however, we need to acknowledge their challenges. Scoping reviews are a popular form of evidence synthesis, and further research is needed to provide clarity of current methodological challenges.

To conduct a scoping review of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other chronic diseases. We used a comprehensive multistage search process from 2000 to 2016, which included traditional bibliographic database searching, searching using names of theories, models and frameworks, and cited reference searching. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and abstracted the data. We found 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 KT theories, models, or frameworks. A majority (87%) of the identified theories, models, or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 60% used once. The theories, models, and frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design, implementation and evaluation activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination and sustainability/scalability activities. Twenty-six were used across the full implementation spectrum (from planning/design to sustainability/scalability) either within or across studies. All were used for at least individual-level behavior change, whereas 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change. We found a significant number of KT theories, models, and frameworks with a limited evidence base describing their use.

Machine Learning is an increasingly important technology dealing with the growing complexity of the digitalised world. Despite the fact, that we live in a 'Big data' world where, almost 'everything' is digitally stored, there are many real-world situations, where researchers are still faced with small data samples. The present bibliometric knowledge synthesis study aims to answer the research question 'What is the small data problem in machine learning and how it is solved?' The analysis a positive trend in the number of research publications and substantial growth of the research community, indicating that the research field is reaching maturity. Most productive countries are China, United States and United Kingdom. Despite notable international cooperation, the regional concentration of research literature production in economically more developed countries was observed. Thematic analysis identified four research themes. The themes are concerned with to dimension reduction in complex big data analysis, data augmentation techniques in deep learning, data mining and statistical learning on small datasets.

To develop a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of simple questions for recommending knowledge synthesis methods suitable for their research question. We used findings from previous work to structure a set of questions along key dimensions of different knowledge synthesis methods. We developed the tool using four steps: (1) designing the tool, (2) conducting usability testing, (3) disseminating the tool, and (4) evaluating its real-world use. Steps 1-3 were conducted iteratively, and the tool was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. The “Right Review” tool separates quantitative reviews and qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). Five questions are asked to select from among 26 methods for quantitative reviews, and 10 questions to select methods from among 15 QES. Conduct/reporting guidance and open-access examples are provided for each recommended method. The tool was disseminated to >4,600 users worldwide within 12 months. Evaluation results showed that the tool was fit-for-purpose and easy to use. The proliferation of knowledge synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the “right” method. “Right Review” is a free, practical decision support tool that helps reviewers choose an appropriate method from 41 alternatives.

The scoping review has become increasingly popular as a form of knowledge synthesis. However, a lack of consensus on scoping review terminology, definition, methodology, and reporting limits the potential of this form of synthesis. In this article, we propose recommendations to further advance the field of scoping review methodology. We summarize current understanding of scoping review publication rates, terms, definitions, and methods. We propose three recommendations for clarity in term, definition and methodology. We recommend adopting the terms “scoping review” or “scoping study” and the use of a proposed definition. Until such time as further guidance is developed, we recommend the use of the methodological steps outlined in the Arksey and O'Malley framework and further enhanced by Levac et al. The development of reporting guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is underway. Consistency in the proposed domains and methodologies of scoping reviews, along with the development of reporting guidance, will facilitate methodological advancement, reduce confusion, facilitate collaboration and improve knowledge translation of scoping review findings.

Scoping reviews have been identified as appropriate methodologies to contribute to our knowledge. The objective of this review is to summarize how scoping reviews can be used to identify research priorities. Based on our experience as evidence synthesis methodologists and researchers, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology group, have identified the potential roles of scoping reviews in identification of research priorities. Scoping reviews typically ask broad questions that allow researchers to obtain an overview or map of the existing evidence. Scoping reviews also incorporate multiple levels of evidence that enriches the strength of the knowledge that is gained. This value is revealed by the use of scoping reviews to contribute to and perform the following functions: 1) map a research area and identify gaps that need to be addressed; 2) prioritize research topics by identifying key issues to investigate; 3) identify the type of study designs that have been used to investigate a particular topic, and/or the range of outcomes measured following a specific intervention; 4) identify the essential contextual factors that are relevant to the study of a particular research topic; 5) identify equity issues in the research field; 6) assist in engaging stakeholders and/or experts in the field by facilitating the inclusion of these stakeholders within the research process; and 7) provide the relevant new knowledge to enhance and support applications for funding. To ensure this contribution to identifying research priorities is reliable, scoping reviews must be performed following the existing rigorous methodological processes and adhere to the currently available reporting guidelines. By doing so, scoping reviews have great potential to identify research priorities, to guide the expansion of research and the generation of new knowledge. •Scoping reviews offer a broad evidence map including research priorities.•Seven methods show how scoping reviews pinpoint research priorities.•They include mapping gaps, topic prioritization, study designs, and context.•They cover equity, stakeholder engagement, and funding advocacy.•Scoping reviews act as synthesis tools to set research priorities.

To compare and contrast different knowledge synthesis methods and map their specific steps through a scoping review to gain a better understanding of how to select the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions of complex evidence. Electronic databases were searched to identify studies reporting emerging knowledge synthesis methods (e.g., Realist review) across multidisciplinary fields. Two reviewers independently selected studies and abstracted data for each article. We synthesized diverse, often conflicting evidence to identify 12 unique knowledge synthesis methods and 13 analysis methods. We organized the 12 full knowledge synthesis methods according to their purpose, outputs and applicability for practice and policy, as well as general guidance on formulating the research question. To make sense of the overlap across these knowledge synthesis methods, we derived a conceptual algorithm to elucidate the process for selecting the optimal knowledge synthesis methods for particular research questions. These findings represent a preliminary understanding on which we will base further advancement of knowledge in this field. As part of next steps, we will convene a meeting of international leaders in the field aimed at clarifying emerging knowledge synthesis approaches.

Different methods to examine research gaps have been described, but there are still no standard methods for identifying, prioritizing, or reporting research gaps. This study aimed to describe the methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps in health research. A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was carried out. We included all study types describing or reporting on methods to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. Data synthesis is both quantitative and qualitative. Among 1,938 identified documents, 139 articles were selected for analysis; 90 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 23 (17%) aimed to determine research priorities, and 26 (19%) had both aims. The most frequent methods in the review were aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included knowledge synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80, 73%). Among 49 studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were both primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) reports. Finally, 52 (37%) articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research. This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research.