QUALITATIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: MAPPING AN UNDEREXPLORED FAMILY OF EVIDENCE SYNTHESES
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7181-0068
Mónica Fontana
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4451-4639
Abstract
Systematic reviews are nowadays regarded as the most solid methodological standard within the hierarchy of evidence. Among them, qualitative systematic reviews are increasingly prominent in academic literature, positioning themselves as a valuable methodology for synthesising results from complex social experiences and phenomena. This study aims to provide an overview of qualitative systematic reviews and their types through a narrative-exploratory review based on the following questions: What proportion of academic literature is traditional systematic reviews compared with qualitative systematic reviews? What are the most frequent types of qualitative systematic review? What types of reviews have been done in countries such as Brazil, Spain and Portugal? The document search was done in the Scopus database. The results showed that while the proportion of qualitative systematic reviews is lower than that of traditional systematic reviews, their growth over recent decades is evidence of recognition of their interpretative and practical potential. Methodologies such as framework synthesis, thematic synthesis, qualitative meta-synthesis, and meta-ethnography are most widespread. The analysis by countries indicates that Brazil has more qualitative reviews in the social sciences and psychology; Spain has a more balanced distribution with an interdisciplinary profile with presence in the social sciences and experimental sciences; and Portugal shows a tendency towards scientific areas such as medicine with a smaller presence of the social sciences. In addition, meta-ethnography creates theoretical metaconcepts while meta-aggregation produces practical categories. In conclusion, qualitative reviews provide contemporary research with rigour, transparency and interpretative sensitivity. Their consolidation and methodological diversification promise an increasingly important role in knowledge production and evidence-based decision making. Including multiple databases and evaluating the methodological quality of primary studies is recommended.
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2026 New Trends in Qualitative Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
openAccess
openAccess
Aguilera Eguía, R. (2014). ¿Revisión sistemática, revisión narrativa o metaanálisis? Revista de la Sociedad Española del Dolor, 21(6), 359-360. https://doi.org/10.4321/S1134-80462014000600010
Ames, H., Cooper, S., France, E., Silveira Bianchim, M., Lewin, S., Schmidt, B.-M., Uny, I., & Noyes, J. (2024). Assessing qualitative data richness and thickness: Development of an evidence-based tool for use in qualitative evidence synthesis, (7), e12059. https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12059
Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., & Jordan, Z. (Editors) (2024). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., Van der Wilt, G. J., & Rehfuess, E. (2021). Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. Universität Bremen
Campbell, F., Tricco, A. C., Munn, Z., & et al. (2023). Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): The same but different—The “big picture” review family. Systematic Reviews, 12(45). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5
Cochrane Collaboration (2025). What are systematic reviews? https://www.cochrane.org/
Dacombe, R. (2018). Systematic Reviews in Political Science: What can the approach contribute to political research? Political studies review, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929916680641
Edwards, J. (2024). Refugee and asylum-seeker children’s experiences: Results of a meta ethnography. Children’s Geographies, 22(2), 281-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2023.2274828
Flemming, K., Booth, A., Garside, R., Tunçalp, Ö., & Noyes, J. (2019). Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: Clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl 1), e000882. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000882
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta–analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
Glass, G. V. (1977). Integrating findings: The meta–analysis of research. Review of Research in Education, 5(1), 351-379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X005001351
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Sage.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. A. (2009). Typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J., 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. PMID: 19490148
Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest. 48(6), e12931. https://doi.org/10. 1111/eci.12931
James, M. L. (2021). Can community-based social protection interventions improve the wellbeing of asylum seekers and refugees in the United Kingdom? A systematic qualitative meta-aggregation review. Social Sciences, 10(6), 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10060194
Mercado-Martínez, F. J. (2002). Qualitative Research in Latin America: Critical Perspectives on Health. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100106
Murillo, F. J., & Martínez Garrido, C. (2019). Una mirada a la investigación educativa en América Latina a partir de sus artículos. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 17(2), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2019.17.2.001
Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Vol. 11). Sage.
Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Struthers, C., Synnot, A., Nunn, J., Hill, S., Goodare, H., & Morley, R. (2018). Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 7, 208. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0
Royal Society & Academy of Medical Sciences. (2017). Evidence synthesis for policy: A report. The Academy of Medical Sciences. https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/36366486
Sánchez Castillo, V.; Pérez Gamboa, A.J., & Gómez Cano, C. A. (2024). Trends and evolution of Scientometric and Bibliometric research in the SCOPUS database. Bibliotecas. Anales de Investigación, 20(1), 1-22.
Soundy, A. (2024). Social Constructivist Meta-Ethnography-A Framework Construction. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241244863
Sukhera, J. (2022). Narrative reviews: Flexible, rigorous, and practical. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(4), 414-417. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J., 36(3), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276. PMID: 31541534.
Theile, C. M., & Beall, A. L. (2024). Narrative reviews of the literature: An overview. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 98(1), 78-82.
Thelwall, M., & Nevill, T. (2021). Is research with qualitative data more prevalent and impactful now? Interviews, case studies, focus groups and ethnographies. Library & Information Science Research, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101094
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2023). Systematic-narrative hybrid literature review: A strategy for integrating a concise methodology into a manuscript. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8, 100381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100381