Systematic review is defined differently by different institutes. For example, Cochrane has reserved this term for quantitative studies while Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) uses the term for the synthesis of all kinds of studies. However, there seems to be a consensus that a systematic review has three characteristic features. First, a clear and well-defined research question. Second, a comprehensive literature search and selection of studies along with critical appraisal. Third, at least two independent reviewers must critically appraise the studies included in the review. The meta-analysis is a term reserved for quantitative studies and it is essential to perform a systematic review for meta-analysis.

With regard to your question, if it is wrong to examine both Qual and Quant studies, mixed methods systematic reviews are used. There are three types of mixed reviews. First, segregated (if you believe that both qualitative and quantitative approaches are distinct and should be analyzed separately). Second, contingent (if you believe that the qualitative and quantitative findings should be analyzed in a parallel manner and by moving back and forth), and finally integrated (if you believe that qualitative and quantitative approaches are not distinct, rather they qualify and complement each other).

Meta-integration or aggregation is the synthesis technique developed by JBI. It is based on the philosophy of pragmatism, that is, aggregation of studies in a way that they are more useful and practical for guiding practice and policymaking. This technique is mainly reserved for qualitative systematic reviews.

In addition, you may wana take a look at the 14 review typology developed by Grant and Booth to further clarify these terms.

References

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 29-40.

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.

Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., & Onghena, P. (2017). Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews: The mixed methods research synthesis approach. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Systematic review is defined differently by different institutes. For example, Cochrane has reserved this term for quantitative studies while Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) uses the term for the synthesis of all kinds of studies. However, there seems to be a consensus that a systematic review has three characteristic features. First, a clear and well-defined research question. Second, a comprehensive literature search and selection of studies along with critical appraisal. Third, at least two independent reviewers must critically appraise the studies included in the review. The meta-analysis is a term reserved for quantitative studies and it is essential to perform a systematic review for meta-analysis.

With regard to your question, if it is wrong to examine both Qual and Quant studies, mixed methods systematic reviews are used. There are three types of mixed reviews. First, segregated (if you believe that both qualitative and quantitative approaches are distinct and should be analyzed separately). Second, contingent (if you believe that the qualitative and quantitative findings should be analyzed in a parallel manner and by moving back and forth), and finally integrated (if you believe that qualitative and quantitative approaches are not distinct, rather they qualify and complement each other).

Meta-integration or aggregation is the synthesis technique developed by JBI. It is based on the philosophy of pragmatism, that is, aggregation of studies in a way that they are more useful and practical for guiding practice and policymaking. This technique is mainly reserved for qualitative systematic reviews.

In addition, you may wana take a look at the 14 review typology developed by Grant and Booth to further clarify these terms.

References

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 29-40.

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.

Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., & Onghena, P. (2017). Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews: The mixed methods research synthesis approach. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Mustafa - Meta-analysis is used to systematically assess previous research studies to derive conclusions about a body of research and involves a quantitative research design. On the other hand, meta-synthesis uses a qualitative research design and attempts to integrate results from a number of different but interrelated qualitative studies. A systematic review is based on empirical evidence and answers research questions by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence. Thus a meta-analysis is often a part of a systematic review. Meta - Integration or Mixed methods or mixed research synthesis is a form of systematic review in which the findings of qualitative and quantitative studies are integrated via qualitative and/or quantitative methods. The advantage of meta - integration is that it integrates the characteristics of both quantitative and qualitative research designs.

Hi Mustafa,

Quite often, a meta-analytic study combines both qualitative and quantitative synthesis of research findings, in a thematic format. I'd assume this is what you refer to as meta-integration?

I'd tend to think the best terminology, and possibly most appropriate, would be 'qualitative synthesis' or 'quantitative synthesis'.

Regards,