INTEGRA methodology for the development of integrative reviews: origins, guidelines, and recommendations

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2024.401

Keywords:

Integrative review, Methodology, Critical analysis of the literature

Abstract

Introduction: The "INTEGRA" methodology represents an updated approach for integrative reviews, emphasizing the quality of outcomes in response to a need expressed by the scientific community.
Objective: To present the INTEGRA methodology and provide guidelines and recommendations for its application.
Methods: This methodological study was conducted in two stages: a) Development of the guideline and b) Analysis. The study was carried out by a team of experts from Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Brazil, who met at least one of the following criteria: a) holding a doctoral degree or being a doctoral candidate with experience in conducting literature reviews; b) having experience in developing reviews for or with professionals in clinical-care settings, policymakers, government agencies, or other decision-makers.
Results: The "INTEGRA" methodology consists of seven stages: 1. (I) Idea or study problem; 2. (N) Narrowing down the inquiry or objective; 3. (T) Targeting the search strategy; 4. (E) Execution or implementation of the search; 5. (G) Grading and quality control of the results; 6. (R) Reviewing the results; 7. (A) Analysis and discussion.
Conclusions: The application of the "INTEGRA" methodology will provide authors with guidelines for developing integrative reviews and improving the quality of contributions in this field.

References

1. Campana ÁO. Metodologia da investigação científica aplicada à área biomédica: 2. Investigações na área médica. J Pneumol [Internet]. 1999 Apr;25(2):84–93. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-35861999000200005&lng=pt&tlng=pt

2. Real Academia Española (RAE). dle.rae.es. 2023. Dato. Available from: https://dle.rae.es/dato

3. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Heal Inf Libr J [Internet]. 2019 Sep 20;36(3):202–22. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hir.12276

4. Manterola C, Rivadeneira J, Delgado H, Sotelo C, Otzen T. ¿Cuántos Tipos de Revisiones de la Literatura Existen? Enumeración, Descripción y Clasificación. Revisión Cualitativa. Int J Morphol [Internet]. 2023 Aug;41(4):1240–53. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022023000401240

5. Knafl K, Whittemore R. Top 10 Tips for Undertaking Synthesis Research. Res Nurs Health [Internet]. 2017 Jun 7;40(3):189–93. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nur.21790

6. Nha Hong Q, Turcotte-Tremblay AM, Pluye P. Revisiones sistemáticas mixtas. Un ejemplo sobre la financiación basada en los resultados. In: Evaluación de las intervenciones sanitarias en salud global Métodos avanzados. Québec: IRD Éditions; 2020. p. 165–94.

7. Tipos de revisão de literatura. Botucatu: Biblioteca Prof. Paulo de Carvalho Mattos. Faculdade de Ciências Agronômicas UNESP, campus de Botucatu; 2015. p. 9.

8. Valencia-Contrera MA. Actualización metodológica de revisiones integrativas: un énfasis en la calidad de los resultados. Salud, Cienc y Tecnol [Internet]. 2022 Dec 21;2:171. Available from: https://revista.saludcyt.ar/ojs/index.php/sct/article/view/171

9. Toronto C, Remington R. A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020.

10. Yin RK, Bingham E, Heald KA. The Difference That Quality Makes. Sociol Methods Res [Internet]. 1976 Nov 30;5(2):139–56. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/004912417600500201

11. Carrasco Diaz B, Araya AX. Soledad y fragilidad en personas mayores que viven en comunidad: una revisión integrativa. Horiz Enferm [Internet]. 2023;(NE):332–48. Available from: https://horizonteenfermeria.uc.cl/index.php/RHE/article/view/67319

12. Urgiles Neira AN, Parrales Vique KA, Calderón Calle ME. Importância de um ambiente cirúrgico estéril durante a cirurgia oral. Res Soc Dev [Internet]. 2023 Jun 28;12(6):e26112642354. Available from: https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/42354

13. Burgos Robles G. Herramientas y estrategias utilizadas en atención ambulatoria de niños autistas. Universidad Andrés Bello; 2024.

14. Contreras Veliz J. Intervenciones en salud que promueven el desarrollo integral en la infancia indígena: Revisión integrativa. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; 2023.

15. Toronto CE, Remington R, editors. A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1

16. Ganong LH. Integrative reviews of nursing research. Res Nurs Health [Internet]. 1987 Feb 19;10(1):1–11. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nur.4770100103

17. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2005 Dec 2;52(5):546–53. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

18. Kruk J. Good scientific practice and ethical principles in scientific research and higher education. Cent Eur J Sport Sci Med [Internet]. 2013;1(1):25–9. Available from: https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1054624.pdf

19. Coronel-Carvajal C. Los objetivos de la investigación. Rev Arch Médico Camagüey [Internet]. 2023;27:e9591. Available from: http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/amc/v27/1025-0255-amc-27-e9591.pdf

20. Richardson W, Wilson M, Nishikawa J, Hayward R. The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club [Internet]. 1995;123:12. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7582737/

21. Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. Developing the Review Question and Inclusion Criteria. AJN, Am J Nurs [Internet]. 2014 Apr;114(4):53–6. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00000446-201404000-00030

22. Salas-Medina P. La pregunta clínica. Barcelona: FUOC; 2019. 20 p.

23. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak [Internet]. 2007 Dec 15;7(1):16. Available from: https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-7-16

24. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. New York: University of York; 2009. 294 p.

25. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences [Internet]. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2006. 354 p. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470754887

26. The ADAPTE Collaboration. Guideline adaptation: A resource toolkit [Internet]. Version 2. 2009. 95 p. Available from: https://g-i-n.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ADAPTE-Resource-toolkit-V2.1-March-2010-updated-disclaimer.pdf

27. Dawes M, Pluye P, Shea L, Grad R, Greenberg A, Nie JY. The identification of clinically important elements within medical journal abstracts: Patient Population–Problem, Exposure– Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Duration and Results (PECODR). Inform Prim Care. 2007;15:9–16.

28. de Oloveira Cruz Latorraca C, Rodrigues M, Leite Pacheco R, Cabrera Martimbianco A, Riera R. Busca em bases de dados eletrônicas da área da saúde: por onde começar. Diagn Trat. 2019;24(2):59–63.

29. Kestenbaum B. Population, Exposure, and Outcome. In: Epidemiology and Biostatistics [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 5–6. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-97433-0_2

30. Schlosser R, O’Neil-Pirozzi T. Problem Formulation in Evidence-based Practice and Systematic Reviews. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 2006;33:5–10.

31. Wildridge V, Bell L. How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Heal Inf Libr J [Internet]. 2002 Jun 26;19(2):113–5. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x

32. Booth A. Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Libr Hi Tech [Internet]. 2006;24(3):355–68. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20170812112250id_/http://testbed.ischool.drexel.edu/I515/Booth.pdf

33. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: The SIPDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res [Internet]. 2012 Oct 24;22(10):1435–43. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1049732312452938

34. La literatura gris. Form Univ [Internet]. 2011;4(6):1. Available from: https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/formuniv/v4n6/art01.pdf

35. De Luca Canto G. Revisões Sistemáticas da Literatura: Guia Prático. Curitiba: Editora Brazil Publishing; 2020. 191 p.

36. Pereira MG, Galvão TF. Etapas de busca e seleção de artigos em revisões sistemáticas da literatura. Epidemiol e Serviços Saúde [Internet]. 2014 Jun;23(2):369–71. Available from: http://scielo.iec.pa.gov.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-49742014000200019&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

37. Pursio K, Kankkunen P, Sanner‐Stiehr E, Kvist T. Professional autonomy in nursing: An integrative review. J Nurs Manag [Internet]. 2021 Sep 26;29(6):1565–77. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jonm.13282

38. Silva BB da, Lima MH de M, Saidel MGB. Mental health nursing care for people with diabetes mellitus: An integrative review. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem [Internet]. 2023 Dec;31:e4073. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-11692023000100612&tlng=en

39. Hannes K, Lockwood C. Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta‐aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2011 Jul 6;67(7):1632–42. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05636.x

40. Saeed Khan K, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Zamora J. Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: IV. Cómo sintetizar los resultados. Med Fam Semer [Internet]. 2022 Nov;48(8):101785. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1138359322000776

41. Real Academia Española (RAE). dle.rae.es. 2023. Flujograma. Available from: https://dle.rae.es/flujograma

42. Real Academia Española (RAE). dle.rae.es. 2023. Calidad. Available from: https://dle.rae.es/calidad

43. Programa de Habilidades en Lectura Crítica Español (CASPe). redcaspe.org. 2022. Instrumentos para la lectura crítica. Available from: https://redcaspe.org/materiales/

44. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2019 Jul;111:49-59.e1. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435618300829

45. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). jbi.global. 2024. Critical appraisal tools. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools

46. O’cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The Quality of Mixed Methods Studies in Health Services Research. J Health Serv Res Policy [Internet]. 2008 Apr 21;13(2):92–8. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074

47. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med [Internet]. 2010 Dec 24;8(1):18. Available from: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-8-18

48. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Heal Care [Internet]. 2007 Sep 16;19(6):349–57. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

49. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2008 Apr;61(4):344–9. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435607004362

50. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Acad Med [Internet]. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245–51. Available from: http://journals.lww.com/00001888-201409000-00021

51. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. Improving the Reporting Quality of Nonrandomized Evaluations of Behavioral and Public Health Interventions: The TREND Statement. Am J Public Health [Internet]. 2004 Mar;94(3):361–6. Available from: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.94.3.361

52. Valencia-Contrera MA, Orellana Yáñez AE. Fenómeno techo de cristal en enfermería: revisión integrativa. Rev Cuid [Internet]. 2022;13(1):e2261. Available from: https://revistas.udes.edu.co/cuidarte/article/view/2261

53. Pavinati G, Vinícius de Lima L, Paiano M, Jaques AE, Tavares Magnabosco G. Contextos de vulnerabilidade de adolescentes que (con)vivem com HIV: uma revisão integrativa. Rev Cuid [Internet]. 2023 Jun 30;14(2):e2803. Available from: https://revistas.udes.edu.co/cuidarte/article/view/2803

54. Prates P, Correa Júnior A, Teles A, Paraizo-Horvath C, Sonobe H. Enfermagem em crises convulsivas pediátricas e contribuições oncológicas: revisão integrativa. Rev Recien [Internet]. 2024;14(42):132–47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.24276/rrecien2024.14.42.132904

55. Lloyd R, Volleath M, Mertens D. Writing the Literature Review [Internet]. Fort Hays State University; 2023. 100 p. Available from: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/all_oer/8/

56. Chigbu UE, Atiku SO, Du Plessis CC. The Science of Literature Reviews: Searching, Identifying, Selecting, and Synthesising. Publications [Internet]. 2023 Jan 6;11(1):2. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/1/2

57. Powell JT, Koelemay MJW. Systematic Reviews of the Literature Are Not Always Either Useful Or the Best Way To Add To Science. EJVES Vasc Forum [Internet]. 2022;54:2–6. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666688X21000605

Downloads

Published

2024-09-02

Issue

Section

Original

How to Cite

1.
Valencia-Contrera M, Vilchez-Barboza V, do Carmo Cruz Robazzi ML, Quintana-Zavala M, Castro-Bastidas J, Ardiles-Irarrazabal R-A, et al. INTEGRA methodology for the development of integrative reviews: origins, guidelines, and recommendations. Data and Metadata [Internet]. 2024 Sep. 2 [cited 2024 Oct. 13];3:.401. Available from: https://dm.ageditor.ar/index.php/dm/article/view/401