Table 1 Stages of systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive studies
| Â | Stage | Description of the process |
|---|---|---|
1 | Articulate purpose and audiences, then review question(s) and scope | Discuss then articulate the review’s purpose and the audience(s) for its findings |
Articulate review question(s) and scope – define the topic, phenomenon or domain of interest through engagement with literature and deliberative discussions | ||
2 | Specify eligibility criteria | Some criteria apply to all reviews: |
Studies must rely on fine-grained analysis of audio / audio-visually recorded naturalistic interaction | ||
Not only interactional data but also its analysis pay explicit attention to the topic, phenomenon or domain of interest | ||
Devise other criteria, including about settings and language, according to needs of the individual review | ||
3 | Search for studies | Identify potential sources of publications including electronic databases, specialist bibliographies, and knowledge amongst the review team and its contacts |
Design, test and refine word groups for database searches | ||
Search sources and record results | ||
Scan identified publications, make inclusion decisions based on eligibility criteria and definition of scope | ||
For difficult cases, read in detail and discuss within the review team to make decisions | ||
4 | Describe characteristics of included studies | Unidimensional quality appraisal is not possible for this kind of evidence, instead record characteristics of data, settings, participants, analytic approach, and analytic depth in order to specify studies’ contribution to the review |
Design customised templates for collecting this information | ||
5 | Data extraction | Design customised data extraction template |
Complete extraction for each study | ||
Collect relevant data extracts from each study | ||
6 | Collate and synthesise data | Read completed data extraction forms |
Organise studies into logical categories | ||
Organise and combine findings into logical categories | ||
Consult wider literature in relation to practices identified | ||
Consult with end users | ||
Identify gaps in the evidence | ||
Derive implications for the review audience(s) | ||
7 | Sensitivity and subgroup analyses | Retrospectively assess the contribution of different sets of findings or sets of publications to the review |
8 | Reporting | Consult review advisors and representatives of intended audiences |
Draw on established guidance for the reporting of systematic reviews (including 'PRISMA' guidelines) | ||
Include tables summarizing study characteristics and study findings |