|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Contents
- Key Takeaways
- Glossary of Key Terms
- What Is an Integrative Review and Why Does It Matter?
- How Does an Integrative Review Differ from Other Review Types?
- What Are the Five Stages of an Integrative Review?
- How Should You Report the Search Process?
- What Makes an Integrative Review Rigorous?
- What Are the Most Common Mistakes to Avoid in Integrative Reviews?
- How Do You Write Up the Integrative Review?
- How Long Does an Integrative Review Take?
- Which Software Tools and Resources Are Most Useful for Integrative Reviews?
- Frequently Asked Questions
- References
Key Takeaways
- An integrative review synthesizes both quantitative and qualitative evidence to build a broad, holistic understanding of a topic.
- Unlike a systematic review, it can include experimental studies, non-experimental studies, and theoretical literature in a single project.
- The five-stage framework by Whittemore and Knafl (2005) remains the most widely cited structure: problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis, and presentation.
- A well-formulated research question, such as one built using the PCC or PICo frameworks, is the foundation of a rigorous review.
- Critical appraisal tools (for example, JBI checklists or the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) must be applied to every included study regardless of its design.
- PRISMA flow diagrams are used to report the selection of studies transparently.
- Data extraction tables and thematic synthesis are the most practical tools for organizing and presenting your findings.
- Integrative reviews are publishable outputs, not merely academic exercises, and have influenced clinical guidelines in fields like nursing, oncology, and sports science.
Glossary of Key Terms
| Term | Definition |
| Integrative review | A review methodology that synthesizes diverse study types, including experimental, non-experimental, and theoretical literature, to develop a comprehensive understanding of a topic. |
| Systematic review | A highly structured review that uses explicit, reproducible methods to answer a focused question, typically limited to randomized controlled trials or other specific study designs. |
| Critical appraisal | The systematic evaluation of a study’s design, methods, and conclusions to assess its validity, reliability, and relevance to the review question. |
| PRISMA | Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; a reporting checklist that guides transparent documentation of the search and selection process. |
| PICO / PICo / PCC | Structured frameworks for building research questions. PICO covers Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome; PICo covers Population, phenomenon of Interest, and Context; PCC covers Population, Concept, and Context. |
| Grey literature | Research produced outside traditional commercial or academic publishing, including government reports, clinical guidelines, conference papers, and theses. |
| Thematic synthesis | A qualitative analysis approach in which data from multiple sources are grouped into recurring themes or patterns to support interpretation. |
| Evidence-based practice (EBP) | The integration of the best available research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values to guide healthcare decisions. |
| Data extraction table | A structured form used to record key information from each included study, such as design, sample size, setting, and key findings. |
| Inclusion/exclusion criteria | Pre-defined rules that determine which studies are eligible for the review, based on factors such as study design, language, date range, and population. |
| JBI | Joanna Briggs Institute; an international research organization that produces critical appraisal checklists widely used in healthcare literature reviews. |
| MMAT | Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; a critical appraisal instrument designed for studies with qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods designs. |
| Audit trail | A detailed record of every decision made during the review process, which enables other researchers to verify and reproduce the review findings. |
What Is an Integrative Review and Why Does It Matter?
An integrative review is a methodology that synthesizes a wide range of literature, including experimental studies, qualitative research, and theoretical texts, to generate a comprehensive picture of a topic. It is the only review method that permits the simultaneous combination of these diverse source types, making it especially powerful when a phenomenon is complex and cannot be fully understood through one type of evidence alone.
Integrative reviews have real-world impact. They have shaped clinical guidelines, informed nursing education, guided oncology treatment protocols, and driven best-practice policies in sports medicine. Understanding how to conduct one is, therefore, not merely an academic skill; it is a professional competency that transfers directly to evidence-based practice.
How Does an Integrative Review Differ from Other Review Types?
The short answer: an integrative review is the most inclusive review type because it accepts both experimental and non-experimental evidence, whereas other methods like impose stricter limits. The table below illustrates the key distinctions.
| Feature | Integrative Review | Systematic Review | Scoping Review |
| Study types accepted | Quantitative, qualitative, theoretical, mixed | Typically clinical trials or specific designs | Any; maps the field broadly |
| Research question | Broad to moderately focused | Narrow and specific | Very broad |
| Critical appraisal | Required | Required and often determines inclusion | Optional |
| Synthesis method | Thematic or narrative | Meta-analysis or narrative | Descriptive mapping |
| Goal | Holistic understanding, theory development, EBP | Definitive effect estimates | Identify scope, gaps, types of evidence |
| Suitable for | Complex healthcare phenomena | Efficacy questions with homogeneous data | New or poorly mapped topics |
When is it appropriate to choose an integrative review?
It is the right choice when your topic spans multiple methodologies, when the literature is diverse in design, when you want to develop or refine a concept, and when a single study design would give you only a partial view of a complex phenomenon.
Example
Topic: The experience of pain management among adult cancer patients in community nursing settings.
Why integrative review? The topic involves patient-reported outcomes (qualitative), medication efficacy data (quantitative), and nursing practice frameworks (theoretical). A systematic review limited to RCTs would miss the patient experience entirely; a scoping review would not evaluate evidence quality. An integrative review captures the full picture.
Appropriate? Yes, because understanding pain management in this context requires both clinical measurement data and the lived experience of patients.
What Are the Five Stages of an Integrative Review?
The five stages come from the landmark framework by Whittemore and Knafl (2005), which remains the standard reference for integrative review methodology. They are: problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis, and presentation of findings. Each stage is described below.
Stage 1: Problem Identification
The first task is to define your research purpose and formulate a clear review question. Your question sets the scope for every subsequent decision. It must be broad enough to capture diverse evidence, yet focused enough to remain manageable.
Use a structured framework to write the question:
| Framework | Components | Best suited for |
| PICo | Population, phenomenon of Interest, Context | Qualitative or complex phenomena |
| PCC | Population, Concept, Context | Scoping or broad questions |
| PICO | Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome | Clinical effectiveness questions |
Once you have a question, conduct a rapid preliminary search to verify that no recent integrative review on the same topic already exists. If one does, your review needs a different angle or a clearly newer timeframe.
Example
Topic: Fatigue in adult patients receiving chemotherapy.
Draft question using PICo: In adult cancer patients (P) receiving chemotherapy (I), what are the experiences and management strategies related to cancer-related fatigue (phenomenon of Interest) in outpatient oncology settings (Context)?
Why this works: The question includes a defined population, a specific phenomenon, and a clinical context. It is broad enough to include both patient interviews and clinical outcome studies, but narrow enough to exclude pediatric oncology, palliative care fatigue, or post-treatment survivorship.
Stage 2: Literature Search
A comprehensive, documented search strategy is what separates a rigorous integrative review from a general literature survey. Your search must be transparent, reproducible, and broad enough to capture relevant evidence from multiple sources.
Key elements of the search strategy:
- Select appropriate databases for your discipline.
- Develop a Boolean search string using MeSH terms, subject headings, and free-text keywords.
- Apply inclusion and exclusion criteria before beginning, not after.
- Search grey literature: government reports, clinical guidelines, theses, and conference proceedings.
- Document every step so that another researcher could replicate your search exactly.
| Discipline | Recommended Primary Databases | Grey Literature Sources |
| Nursing | CINAHL, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library | NICE guidelines, national nursing organizations, theses via ProQuest |
| Oncology | PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov | ASCO abstracts, ESMO guidelines, WHO cancer reports |
| Sports Science | SPORTDiscus, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science | National governing body position statements, IOC consensus documents |
| Public Health | PubMed/MEDLINE, Global Health (Ovid), Embase | WHO, CDC, ECDC reports; government surveillance bulletins; CADTH |
| Social Work | Social Work Abstracts, PsycINFO, SCOPUS | Social Care Online, government program evaluations, NGO reports |
| Education | ERIC, PsycINFO, British Education Index | Department of Education reports, OECD PISA publications, think tank briefs |
| Psychology | PsycINFO, PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science | PsycEXTRA, APA policy statements, government mental health strategy documents |
| Economics | EconLit, Scopus, Web of Science, SSRN | IMF and World Bank working papers, OECD economic outlooks, central bank reports |
| Political Science | PAIS Index, Scopus, Web of Science | UN documents, parliamentary records, think tank publications (Brookings, Chatham House) |
| Sociology | Sociological Abstracts, JSTOR, Web of Science | Policy Commons, census and statistical agency reports, NGO evaluations |
| Environmental Science | Web of Science, Scopus, GeoRef, BIOSIS | Environmental impact assessments, EPA and UNEP reports, conservation body publications |
| Law | LexisNexis, Westlaw, HeinOnline, vLex | Government gazettes, parliamentary committee reports, law commission consultation papers |
| Pharmacy / Pharmacology | Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts | FDA and EMA regulatory documents, NICE technology appraisals, pharmacovigilance databases |
| Epidemiology | PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health | WHO situation reports, national registry data, ECDC surveillance reports |
| Nutrition and Dietetics | CINAHL, PubMed/MEDLINE, CAB Abstracts | FAO and WHO nutrition guidelines, national dietary survey reports, food agency publications |
Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be pre-specified in writing before you start screening. A well-written criteria table looks like this:
| Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
| Adult participants (18 years or older) | Pediatric or adolescent populations |
| Published in peer-reviewed journals | Conference abstracts without full-text access |
| Published within the last 10 years | Studies published before the defined date range |
| English language | Languages other than English without available translation |
| Any study design including quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods | Opinion pieces, editorials, or letters with no original data |
| Addresses the defined phenomenon of interest | Addresses a related but distinct phenomenon |
Stage 3: Data Evaluation (Critical Appraisal)
Every study included in your review must be assessed for methodological quality. This does not mean excluding poor-quality studies automatically; rather, it means weighting their contribution appropriately and reporting your assessment transparently.
This is one area where integrative reviews are sometimes misunderstood: unlike some systematic reviews, you are not required to exclude studies solely on quality grounds, but you must acknowledge and report quality issues.
Recommended critical appraisal tools by study type:
| Study Type | Recommended Tool | Key Domains Assessed |
| Quantitative (RCTs) | JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for RCTs | Randomization, blinding, attrition, outcome measurement |
| Quantitative (observational) | JBI Checklist for Cohort or Cross-Sectional Studies | Sampling, confounding, measurement validity |
| Qualitative | JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research | Philosophical congruence, rigor, transferability |
| Mixed methods | Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) | All three design types in one instrument |
| Theoretical/conceptual | No universal tool; assess conceptual clarity, logical consistency, and applicability | Coherence, scope, parsimony |
Practical tip: have two reviewers appraise each study independently and then compare ratings. Any disagreements should be resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Record your inter-rater agreement as part of your audit trail.
Example
Topic: Concussion management protocols in amateur contact sports.
Critical appraisal challenge: The literature includes randomized trials of return-to-play protocols (quantitative), athlete interviews about symptom reporting (qualitative), and consensus statements from governing bodies (theoretical or expert opinion). No single appraisal tool covers all three.
Solution: use JBI checklists for quantitative and qualitative studies and assess theoretical documents using criteria of logical consistency, authority of authorship, and relevance to the review question. Report the mix in your methodology section.
Stage 4: Data Analysis and Synthesis
This is the intellectual core of the review. After appraising your studies, you extract data systematically and then synthesize across them to identify patterns, themes, and contradictions. The goal is not simply to summarize each study in sequence; it is to generate new knowledge by integrating findings across sources.
Step-by-step process:
- Create a data extraction table: record study details, design, sample, setting, and key findings for every included article.
- Read all extracted data for content: note recurring ideas, contradictions, and gaps.
- Group findings into themes: these are analytical categories that cut across studies and designs.
- Review themes critically: are they supported by sufficient evidence? Do qualitative and quantitative findings converge or diverge?
- Draft a synthesis narrative: write a coherent account of what the evidence collectively means.
Example data extraction table structure:
| Author, Year | Study Design | Sample (n, setting) | Key Findings Relevant to Review Question |
| Smith et al., 2021 | RCT | n=120, oncology outpatients | Structured exercise reduced fatigue scores by 32% compared to usual care. |
| Jones & Patel, 2020 | Qualitative, thematic analysis | n=18, hospital oncology ward | Patients described fatigue as invisible and felt their concerns were minimized by staff. |
| Nguyen et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional survey | n=450, community cancer centers | Fatigue prevalence was 74%; nurse-led assessment was documented in only 28% of cases. |
Example of a synthesis narrative
Here’s a worked example of a synthesis narrative drawn from those three studies:
The evidence from the three included studies collectively suggests that cancer-related fatigue is both highly prevalent and consistently undermanaged, with gaps existing at the levels of clinical assessment, staff responsiveness, and access to structured intervention.
Nguyen et al. (2019) establish the scale of the problem: nearly three-quarters of patients across community cancer centers reported fatigue, yet nurse-led assessment was documented in fewer than one in three cases. This assessment gap is significant because it precedes any possibility of intervention. Jones and Patel (2020) offer a patient-centered explanation for why this gap persists: qualitative findings indicate that patients experienced fatigue as an invisible symptom, one they felt staff routinely minimized or failed to take seriously. Together, these two studies suggest a cycle in which under-documentation and under-acknowledgment reinforce each other, leaving fatigue unaddressed at the point of clinical contact.
Smith et al. (2021) demonstrate that effective intervention is achievable: a structured exercise program reduced fatigue scores by 32% among oncology outpatients compared to usual care. However, the benefit of this finding depends entirely on patients being identified as experiencing significant fatigue in the first place. Given the assessment rates reported by Nguyen et al. (2019), the population who might benefit from such programs is likely far larger than those currently reaching them.
Taken together, the evidence points to a gap between what is clinically possible and what is routinely delivered. Addressing cancer-related fatigue at scale requires not only access to structured interventions but upstream improvements in assessment practice and in the way clinical staff receive and respond to patient-reported symptoms. Future research and service development should prioritize closing the assessment gap as a precondition for intervention uptake.
Stage 5: Presentation of Findings
The final stage is about communicating your synthesis clearly and transparently. A well-presented integrative review includes: a PRISMA flow diagram showing how studies were identified, screened, and included; a data extraction summary table; clearly labeled themes or categories with supporting evidence; a critical discussion that interprets the findings; and a clear statement of limitations.
Your discussion section should answer three questions:
- What do the findings collectively mean for practice, policy, or theory?
- Where are the gaps in current evidence?
- What should future research address?
How Should You Report the Search Process?
Transparent reporting is required, and the PRISMA 2020 checklist is the standard tool for this. At minimum, your report must document: the databases searched; the exact search strings used; the number of records found at each stage; the reasons for exclusion at full-text screening; and the final number of included studies with a PRISMA flow diagram.
A simplified PRISMA flow description for a review on sports concussion might read: 2,145 records were identified through database searching; 412 duplicates were removed; 1,312 records were excluded at title and abstract screening; 64 full texts were assessed; 21 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the review.
What Makes an Integrative Review Rigorous?
Rigor in an integrative review is achieved through systematic documentation, transparent decision-making, and consistent application of methods. Because integrative reviews include diverse study types, rigor is not measured the same way as in a meta-analysis; instead, it is judged by the quality of the audit trail, the thoroughness of the search, and the soundness of the synthesis.
The following practices strengthen rigor:
- Write a protocol before starting and register it publicly if possible (for example, via PROSPERO for health reviews).
- Pre-specify your inclusion and exclusion criteria in writing.
- Use at least two independent reviewers for screening and appraisal.
- Document every decision with a clear rationale.
- Use a validated data extraction form, piloted before the full extraction.
- Report your appraisal ratings and explain how quality influenced your synthesis.
- Acknowledge limitations, including the possibility of publication bias and the risk of missing relevant grey literature.
What Are the Most Common Mistakes to Avoid in Integrative Reviews?
Students and novice researchers consistently encounter the same pitfalls. The following table maps the most frequent errors to their solutions.
| Common Mistake | How to Avoid It |
| Starting the search before finalizing the research question | Finalize your PICo or PCC question in writing, then design your search string from it. |
| Searching only one or two databases | Use at least three databases plus a grey literature source. Underpowered searches lead to incomplete evidence. |
| Skipping critical appraisal | Apply a validated appraisal tool to every included study. Unevaluated evidence cannot be meaningfully weighted. |
| Summarizing studies instead of synthesizing them | Synthesis means identifying patterns across studies, not sequentially describing each one. Ask: what does the combined evidence mean? |
| Losing track of the audit trail | Keep a decision log from day one. Record every inclusion/exclusion decision and the rationale behind it. |
| Failing to account for study heterogeneity | When studies vary widely in design and population, acknowledge this in your synthesis and discuss its implications for interpretation. |
| Ignoring conflicting findings | Contradictions in the literature are valuable; they show where evidence is uncertain and where research is needed. |
| Not registering a protocol | Register your protocol on PROSPERO (health sciences) or OSF (other disciplines) before you begin to enhance credibility. |
How Do You Write Up the Integrative Review?
A standard integrative review article follows a structured format, similar to a primary research paper but adapted to synthesis methodology. The sections below describe what belongs in each part.
| Section | What to Include |
| Abstract | Background, aim, method (including databases and date range), results (number of studies, key themes), conclusion, and implications for practice. |
| Introduction | Background to the topic, justification for the review (why is this question important?), the research question, and an overview of the review method chosen. |
| Methods | Search strategy, databases, date range, inclusion and exclusion criteria, PRISMA diagram, critical appraisal tool(s) used, and data extraction approach. |
| Results | PRISMA numbers, overview table of included studies, critical appraisal ratings, and presentation of themes with supporting evidence from the literature. |
| Discussion | Interpretation of findings, comparison with prior reviews, clinical or practical implications, limitations, and directions for future research. |
| Conclusion | Brief, evidence-based answer to the review question and its implications for practice, policy, or theory. |
| References | All cited sources in the required style. Every included study must appear here; all references in the text must appear in this list. |
Writing tip: do not use first-person passive phrases such as ‘articles were reviewed.’ Prefer active, transparent language: ‘Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using the pre-specified inclusion criteria.’ Precision in methods writing signals rigor to readers and peer reviewers.
How to write the Methods section of an integrative review
Poor version:
We searched several databases and found articles about fatigue in cancer patients. Studies that seemed relevant were included.
Improved version:
PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from January 2014 to December 2024 using the following Boolean string: (cancer OR oncology OR chemotherapy) AND (fatigue OR cancer-related fatigue) AND (management OR intervention OR experience). The grey literature was searched via ASCO abstract archives and ESMO guidelines.
Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts against pre-specified inclusion criteria. Full texts of potentially eligible studies were retrieved and assessed by both reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through discussion; no disagreements remained after discussion. Critical appraisal was conducted using JBI checklists appropriate to each study design.
Why the improved version works:
It names the databases, provides the exact search string, specifies the date range, explains the screening process, identifies who did the appraisal, and cites the tool used. A reader could replicate this search.
How Long Does an Integrative Review Take?
Timelines vary depending on scope, team size, and institutional requirements. The table below provides approximate time ranges for a solo undergraduate project.
| Stage | Approximate Time |
| Formulating the research question and conducting a preliminary search | 1 to 2 weeks |
| Developing and executing the full search strategy | 1 to 2 weeks |
| Screening titles and abstracts | 1 to 3 weeks (depends on number of records) |
| Full-text assessment and data extraction | 2 to 4 weeks |
| Critical appraisal | 1 to 2 weeks |
| Thematic synthesis and writing the discussion | 2 to 4 weeks |
| Drafting and revising the full manuscript | 2 to 3 weeks |
| Total (approximate) | 10 to 20 weeks for a thorough undergraduate review |
Which Software Tools and Resources Are Most Useful for Integrative Reviews?
- Covidence or Rayyan: web-based platforms for managing the screening process and recording inclusion and exclusion decisions.
- R Discovery for searching preprint servers, conference proceedings, and university/institutional repositories.
- Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote: reference management software for organizing and deduplicating your search results.
- PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template: available free from the PRISMA statement website.
- JBI Critical Appraisal Tools: freely downloadable from the Joanna Briggs Institute website.
- MMAT: available from the McGill University website.
- PROSPERO: free registration platform for review protocols in health sciences.
- Excel or Google Sheets: practical for building data extraction tables when specialist software is unavailable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is an integrative review acceptable as an undergraduate dissertation or thesis project?
Yes. Integrative reviews are recognized as publishable research outputs, not simply student exercises. Many undergraduate honors projects and capstone assignments in nursing, allied health, and sports science take this form. They require no new data collection, making them feasible within typical academic timelines, but they do demand methodological rigor comparable to any other research design. Speak with your supervisor early about whether a protocol registration is expected.
How many studies do I need to include for my review to be valid?
There is no universal minimum. The number depends on how much relevant literature exists on your topic. Some published integrative reviews include fewer than 10 studies when a topic is emerging or highly specific; others include 50 or more. What matters is that your search was comprehensive, your criteria were applied consistently, and you report the reasons for any inclusions or exclusions. Do not pad your review with tangentially relevant studies just to increase the count.
Can I include studies that are not in English?
Whether to include non-English studies is a decision you make when setting your inclusion criteria, and you must make it before searching. If you have language restrictions due to your own reading ability or available translation resources, state this as a limitation. Including only English-language studies is common and acceptable, but it may introduce language bias, particularly in topics where substantial research exists in other languages such as Portuguese (common in nursing literature) or Chinese (common in sports medicine). A tool like R Discovery can be used to efficiently and accurately translate research papers, and you should note the use of such tools in your Methods section.
What is the difference between a thematic synthesis and a narrative synthesis?
A thematic synthesis involves systematically coding the findings from each included study and then grouping those codes into higher-level themes through an iterative process. It is inductive and generates conceptual categories that may go beyond the original studies. A narrative synthesis is more descriptive: it tells the story of what the evidence shows, organized by theme or by study characteristic, but without the same level of systematic coding. Thematic synthesis is generally considered more rigorous when qualitative or mixed evidence is involved; narrative synthesis is practical when studies are too heterogeneous for a more structured approach.
Do I need two reviewers, or can I do this alone as a student?
Two reviewers are the gold standard because they reduce the risk of individual bias in screening and appraisal decisions. However, solo integrative reviews by students are common and accepted, particularly at the undergraduate level, provided you acknowledge this as a limitation. To compensate, you can use a pre-piloted extraction form, document your decision-making carefully, and ask a supervisor or peer to check a random sample of your screening or appraisal decisions.
My professor says my topic is too broad. How do I narrow it down without switching to a systematic review?
Narrowing is done at the level of the research question and inclusion criteria, not by changing the review type. Use your PICo or PCC framework to add specificity: narrow the population (for example, from ‘athletes’ to ‘adult amateur contact sport athletes’), the context (for example, from ‘sports injuries’ to ‘return-to-play decisions after concussion’), or the time frame of included literature (for example, studies published from 2015 onward). You can stay broad enough to include diverse study designs while still being specific enough to manage the volume of literature.
What do I do if my search finds almost no relevant studies?
First, revisit your search string: you may be using terms that are too narrow or that do not match the terminology used in your discipline. Expand your synonyms and check the subject headings used in the few articles you did find. Second, check whether you are searching the right databases for your topic. Third, consider broadening your inclusion criteria slightly, for example by extending the date range or accepting related populations. If after these adjustments you still find very few studies, that finding is itself informative and worth reporting: it demonstrates a gap in the literature and provides a strong rationale for future primary research.
References
1. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546-553.
2. Dhollande S, Taylor A, Meyer S, Scott M. Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers. J Res Nurs. 2021;26(5):427-438.
3. Souza MT, Silva MD, Carvalho R. Integrative review: what is it? How to do it? Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2010;8(1):102-106.
4. Torraco RJ. Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Hum Resource Dev Rev. 2016;15(4):404-428.
5. Toronto CE, Remington R, editors. A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review. Cham: Springer; 2020.
6. Russell CL. An overview of the integrative research review. Prog Transplant. 2005;15(1):8-13.
7. Hopia H, Latvala E, Liimatainen L. Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016;30(4):662-669.
8. Broome ME. Integrative literature reviews for the development of concepts. In: Rodgers BL, Knafl KA, editors. Concept Development in Nursing. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1993. p. 231-250.
9. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
10. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fabregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright; 2018.
11. Joanna Briggs Institute. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide: JBI; 2020.
12. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91-108.
13. Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2019;104:333-339.
Comment