integrative literature review reviews

A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review

• © 2020
• Coleen E. Toronto 0 ,
• Ruth Remington 1

School of Nursing, Curry College, Milton, USA

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Department of Nursing, Framingham State University, Framingham, USA

• Defines the key features that distinguish the integrative review from other types of literature reviews
• Guides the reader through the complete process of conducting the integrative review
• Promotes valid and reliable integrative reviews that support evidence-base nursing practice
• Offers clear, and practical step-by-step instructions
• Makes connections to published nursing research
• Appropriate for any nurse author of an integrative review, student, clinician, academic or researcher

32k Accesses

147 Citations

17 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (7 chapters)

Front matter, overview of the integrative review.

Coleen E. Toronto

Formulating Review Question

• Karen Devereaux Melillo

Searching Systematically and Comprehensively

• Jane Lawless, Margaret J. Foster

Quality Appraisal

Ruth Remington

Analysis and Synthesis

• Patricia A. Dwyer

Discussion and Conclusion

• Coleen E. Toronto, Ruth Remington

Dissemination of the Integrative Review

• Kristen A. Sethares
• Integrative review process
• Literature reviews
• Systematic literature search
• Nursing Research
• Integrative Review Method

About this book

Editors and affiliations, about the editors.

Coleen Toronto , PhD, RN, CNE, is an Associate Professor in the School of Nursing at Curry College, USA. Dr. Toronto is a BSN graduate of Northeastern University, received her master’s in nursing education from Framingham State University, and her PhD in nursing from University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Dr. Toronto is a Certified Nurse Educator (CNE). Her research interests include integrative review methodology, nursing education, health literacy and Delphi methodology.

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review

Editors : Coleen E. Toronto, Ruth Remington

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Medicine , Medicine (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-030-37503-4 Published: 18 February 2020

eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-37504-1 Published: 17 February 2020

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XII, 106

Number of Illustrations : 3 b/w illustrations, 8 illustrations in colour

Topics : Nursing Research , Nursing Education , Research Skills

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Integrative Review

What is an Integrative Review?

An  integrative review provides a broader summary of the literature and includes findings from a range of research designs. It gathers and synthesizes  both empirical and theoretical evidence  relevant to a clearly defined problem. It may include case studies, observational studies, and meta-analyses, but may also include practice applications, theory, and guidelines. It is the only approach that allows for the combination of diverse methodologies. Its aim is to develop a holistic understanding   of the topic, present the state of the science and contribute to theory development.  The integrative review has been advocated as important for evidence-based practice initiatives in nursing  (Hopia et al., 2016).

Integrative reviews are popular in nursing because they use diverse data sources to investigate the complexity of nursing practice. An integrative review addresses the current state of the evidence, the quality of the available evidence, identifies gaps in the literature and suggests future directions for research and practice The clinical question(s)   of an integrative review   is broader  than that of a systematic review, yet should be clearly stated and well-defined. As with a systematic review, an integrative review requires a transparent and rigorous systematic approach  (Remington & Toronto, 2020).

Integrative reviews synthesize research data from various research designs to reach comprehensive and reliable conclusions. An integrative review helps to develop a comprehensive understanding of the topic by synthesizing  all forms of available evidence (Dhollande et al., 2021). They allow healthcare professionals to use all available evidence from both  qualitative and quantitative research to provide a more holistic understanding of the topic, which can then be applied to clinical practice. Sampling for an integrative review may include experimental and nonexperimental (empirical) and theoretical literature (Remington & Toronto, 2020). 

From:  Kutcher, & LeBaron, V. T. (2022). A simple guide for completing an integrative review using an example article.  Journal of Professional Nursing,  40 , 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2022.02.004

See Table 2: Steps of the integrative review (IR) process with key points and lessons learned

Steps of the Integrative Review Process

1: Select a Topic:  Formulate a purpose and/or review question(s).   An integrative review can be used to answer research questions related to nursing and other disciplines.   Clearly identify a problem from a gap in the literature. Perform a quick search for other literature reviews related to the topic of interest to avoid duplication. Integrative review questions should be  broad in scope, but narrow enough that the search is manageable.  It should be  well-defined,  and  clearly stated . Provide background on the topic and justification for the integrative review. Do a quick literature search to determine if any recent integrative or other types of reviews on or related to the topic have been performed.

Quality Appraisal Tools for Integrative Reviews

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklists  Appraisal checklists designed for use with Systematic Reviews, Randomized Controlled Trials, Cohort Studies,  Case Control  Studies, Economic Evaluations, Diagnostic Studies, Qualitative studies and Clinical Prediction Rule.

Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)  The MMAT is a critical appraisal tool that is designed for the appraisal stage of systematic mixed studies reviews, i.e., reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. It permits to appraise the methodological quality of five categories to studies: qualitative research, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies. (Hong et al., 2018).

Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers.  Education for Information, 34 (4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221

More Information

For more information on integrative reviews:

Dhollande, S., Taylor, A., Meyer, S., & Scott, M. (2021). Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers.  Journal of Research in Nursing, 26( 5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907

Evans, D. (2007). Integrative reviews: Overview of methods. In C. Webb, & B. Roe (Eds.),  Reviewing research evidence for nursing practice: Systematic reviews  (pp. 135 - 148). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Hopia, Latvala, E., & Liimatainen, L. (2016). Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review.  Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences,  30 (4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12327

Kutcher, & LeBaron, V. T. (2022). A simple guide for completing an integrative review using an example article.  Journal of Professional Nursing,  40 , 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2022.02.004

Oermann, M. H., & Knafl, K. A. (2021). Strategies for completing a successful integrative review.  Nurse Author & Editor (Blackwell) ,  31 (3/4), 65–68. https://doi-org.libproxy.adelphi.edu/10.1111/nae2.30

Toronto, C. E., & Remington, R. (Eds.). (2020).  A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review . Springer.

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology.  Journal of Advanced Nursing ,  52 (5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Whittemore, R. (2007). Rigour in integrative reviews. In C. Webb, & B. Roe (Eds.),  Reviewing research evidence for nursing practice: Systematic reviews  (pp. 149 - 156). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

• << Previous: Evidence Synthesis Review Types - Overview
• Next: Scoping Review >>
• Types of Questions
• Key Features and Limitations
• Is a Systematic Review Right for Your Research?
• Scoping Review
• Rapid Review
• Meta-Analysis/Meta-Synthesis
• Selecting a Review Type
• Reducing Bias
• Guidelines for Student Researchers
• Training Resources
• Register Your Protocol
• Handbooks & Manuals
• Reporting Guidelines
• PRESS 2015 Guidelines
• Search Strategies
• Selected Databases
• Grey Literature
• Handsearching
• Citation Searching
• Study Types & Terminology
• Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research
• Critical Appraisal of Studies
• Broad Functionality Programs & Tools
• Search Strategy Tools
• Deduplication Tools
• CItation Screening
• Critical Appraisal Tools
• Quality Assessment/Risk of Bias Tools
• Data Collection/Extraction
• Meta Analysis Tools
• Books on Systematic Reviews
• Finding Systematic Review Articles in the Databases
• Systematic Review Journals
• More Resources
• Evidence-Based Practice Research in Nursing
• Citation Management Programs
• Last Updated: May 3, 2024 5:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.adelphi.edu/Systematic_Reviews

Gerstein Science Information Centre

Knowledge syntheses: systematic & scoping reviews, and other review types.

• Before you start
• Getting Started
• Different Types of Knowledge Syntheses
• Assemble a Team
• Develop your Protocol
• Eligibility Criteria
• Screening for articles
• Data Extraction
• Critical appraisal
• What are Systematic Reviews?
• What is a Meta-Analysis?
• What are Scoping Reviews?
• What are Rapid Reviews?
• What are Realist Reviews?
• What are Mapping Reviews?

When is an integrative review methodology appropiate?

Elements of an integrative review, methods and guidance.

• What are Umbrella Reviews?
• Standards and Guidelines
• Supplementary Resources for All Review Types
• Resources for Qualitative Synthesis
• Resources for Quantitative Synthesis
• Resources for Mixed Methods Synthesis
• Bibliography
• More Questions?
• Common Mistakes in Systematic Reviews, scoping reviews, and other review types

An integrative review is a specific review method that summarises past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a greater comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem (Broome 1993). Thus, integrative reviews have the potential to build upon nursing science, informing research, practice, and policy initiatives. 

An integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research) and has the potential to play a greater role in evidence-based practice for nursing (Whittemore et al., 2005) .

When to Use It: According to  Toronto, C., & Remington, R.(2020) , Whitmore et al. (2005) , Broome (1993): an integrative review approach is best suited for:

A research scope focused more broadly at a phenomenon of interest rather than a systematic review and allows for diverse research, which may contain theoretical and methodological literature to address the aim of the review

Supporting a wide range of inquiry, such as defining concepts, reviewing theories, or analyzing methodological issues

Examining the complexity of nursing practice more broadly by using diverse data sources

The following characteristics, strengths, and challenges of integrative reviews are derived from Toronto, C., & Remington, R.(2020) , Whitmore et al. (2005) , Broome (1993):

Characteristics:

A review method that summarises past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem

An integrative review is best designed for nursing practice

The problem must be clearly defined

The aim of the review is to analyze experimental and non-experimental research simultaneously in order to:

Define concepts

Review theories

Review evidence/point out gaps in the literature

Analyze methodological issues

Best designed for nursing research

Evidence produced from well-conducted integrative reviews contributes to nursing knowledge by clarifying phenomena, which in turn informs nursing practice and clinical practice guidelines

Challenges:

The combination and complexity of incorporating diverse methodologies can contribute to a lack of rigour, inaccuracy, and bias

Methods of analysis, synthesis, and conclusion-drawing remain poorly formulated

Combining empirical and theoretical reports can be difficult

There is no current guidance on reporting

The following resources are considered to be the best  guidance for conduct  in the field of integrative reviews.

METHODS & GUIDANCE

Hopia, H., Latvala, E., & Liimatainen, L. (2016). Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review.   Scandinavian journal of caring sciences ,  30 (4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12327

Russell C. L. (2005). An overview of the integrative research review.   Progress in transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.) ,  15 (1), 8–13

Toronto, & Remington, R. (2020). A Step-By-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing AG.

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology .  Journal of advanced nursing ,  52 (5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

REPORTING GUIDELINE

There is currently no reporting guideline for integrative reviews.

• << Previous: What are Mapping Reviews?
• Next: What are Umbrella Reviews? >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 10:15 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/systematicreviews

Library links

• Gerstein Home
• U of T Libraries Home
• Renew items and pay fines
• Library hours
• Contact Gerstein
• University of Toronto Libraries
• UT Mississauga Library
• UT Scarborough Library
• Information Commons
• All libraries

© University of Toronto . All rights reserved.

Connect with us

Literature Reviews: Systematic, Scoping, Integrative

Characteristics of review types, choosing a review type.

Steps in a Systematic/Scoping/Integrative Review

Confirming the Knowledge Gap

Standards and reporting guidelines.

• Creating a Search Strategy
• Limits and Inclusion Criteria
• Review Protocols
• Elements of a Systematic Review
• Review Tools and Applications

Additional Resources

• JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis Process outlines for multiple types of evidence reviews. A great source to cite in your methods section.
• PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Guidance for authors and peer reviewers on best practices in reporting for evidence reviews. Includes extensions for different types of reviews, including scoping reviews

Not sure which review type is right for your research question? Check out the links below for help choosing.

• What Review is Right for You? v2 14 page PDF survey to help you determine which review type might work best for you. Very thorough!
• Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Creating an effective search for a systematic review means walking a tightrope between comprehensiveness and managability. You want to try to include all of the studies that could possibly be relevant while simultaneously getting your search results down to a number of articles that you can realistically review. 

The Basic Process:

• Develop a research question.
• Consult with a librarian for help with steps 3-16.
• Search databases to see if a review has already been published on your topic. 
• Search protocol repositories to see if a review on your topic is planned.
• Select the type of review (systematic, scoping, integrative). This will require running some test searches to see if there is enough literature to merit a systematic review.
• Select databases.
• Select grey literature sources (if applicable). Read this article for helpful suggestions on systematically searching for grey literature.
• Formulate an initial search for one of your selected databases. For tips on searching, consult our Mastering Keyword Searching guide.
• Review results from initial search, scanning titles, abstracts, and subject headings to identify additional terms. You may also want to use the subject heading database you can find within each database.
• Run the search again. Continue to add relevant terms and adjust the scope of your question (which may require eliminating terms) until results are a reasonable size and predominantly relevant to your question.
• When you think your search is nearly final, gather 2-3 of your most relevant articles and test their reference lists against your search results. If your search contains a large majority of the relevant articles from those reference lists, your have your final search (remember no search is ever perfect, and you will nearly always add articles you find via reference lists, recommendations, etc. that did not appear in your search results). 
• Translate your search to your other databases. Generally your keywords will stay the same across databases, but you will most likely need to adjust your subject headings, because those can vary from database to database.
• Ask a librarian to peer review your search. Try the PRESS checklist . 
• Develop inclusion and exclusion criteria in preparation for reviewing articles (this step may come later for a scoping review)
• Write a protocol .
• Database name (be as specific as possible, including the full title, especially for databases that are offered in multiple formats, e.g. Ovid Medline) and dates of coverage.
• Search terms, including indicating which are subject headings and which are keywords plus any limitations to where the keywords were search if relevant.
• Database limits/filters applied to the results (e.g. publication year, language, etc.).
• Date of your search.
• Number of results.
• Begin title/abstract screening. Two reviewers for each item is best practice.
• Begin full-text review of the articles still remaining. Again, two reviewers for each item is best practice. 
• Conduct citation mining for the articles that make it through full-text review. That means looking at reference lists (backwards searching) and searching for articles that cite back to the article you have (forward searching). You might also consider setting aside all of the systematic and scoping reviews that came up with your search (generally those are excluded from your review) and mining their reference lists as well. Repeat the title/abstract screening and full-text reviews for the articles identified through citation mining.
• Check all articles that made it through the full-text review for retractions, and remove any articles that have been retracted. 
• If doing a systematic review, conduct a critical appraisal of included articles (aka Risk of Bias Assessment).
• Covidence. (2024). A practical guide to data extraction for intervention systematic reviews .
• Pollock et al. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews . JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21 (3), 520-532. 
• Prepare your manuscript (for information on writing each section of your manuscript, see our guide to Writing up Your Own Research ). 

Before beginning your review, you need to be sure that no other reviews with the same research question as yours already exist or are in progress. This is easily done by searching research databases and protocol registries.

Databases to Check

Protocol Registries

• PROSPERO PROSPERO accepts registrations for systematic reviews, rapid reviews and umbrella reviews. PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews or literature scans. Sibling PROSPERO sites register systematic reviews of human studies and systematic reviews of animal studies.

It is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the standards and reporting guidelines for the type of review you are planning to do. Following the standards/guidelines as you plan and execute your review will help ensure that you minimize bias and maximize your chances of getting published.

Systematic Reviews

• PRISMA Statement The PRISMA statement is currently the standards and guidelines of choice for systematic reviews. At the link you will find the statement as well as explanations of each element, a checklist of elements, a PRISMA flow diagram template, and more.

• IOM Finding What Works in Healthcare: Standards for Systematic Reviews Standards from the National Academy of Medicine and National Academies Press. The free download link is all the way over on the right.

Scoping Reviews

• PRISMA-SCR Extension for Scoping Reviews A PRISMA statement, explanation and checklist specifically for scoping reviews.
• Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews While the PRISMA-SCR provides reporting guidelines, these guidelines from JBI are for how to actually plan and do your review. This is the explanation for updates made to the manual linked below. You can skip this article and go directly to the JBI manual if you prefer.

Integrative Reviews

• Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. This article is the current standard for designing an integrative review. more... less... https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
• Tavares de Souza, M., Dias da Silva, M., & de Carvalho, R. (2010). Integrative review: What is it? How to do it? Einstein, 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1590/s1679-45082010rw1134
• Next: Creating a Search Strategy >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://libguides.massgeneral.org/reviews

University of Houston Libraries

• Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences
• Review Comparison Chart
• Decision Tools
• Systematic Review
• Meta-Analysis
• Scoping Review
• Mapping Review
• Integrative Review
• Rapid Review
• Realist Review
• Umbrella Review
• Review of Complex Interventions
• Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review
• Narrative Literature Reviews
• Standards and Guidelines

Navigate the links below to jump to a specific section of the page:

When is an Integrative Review methodology appropriate?

Outline of stages, methods and guidance, examples of integrative reviews, supplementary resources.

"An integrative review is a specific review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a greater comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem" (Broome, 1993). Thus, integrative reviews have the potential to build upon nursing science, informing research, practice, and policy initiatives.

An integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research) and have the potential to play a greater role in evidence-based practice for nursing ( Whittemore & Knafl, 2005 ).

Characteristics:

• An integrative review is best designed for nursing research
• The problem must be clearly defined
• define concepts
• review theories
• review evidence/point out gaps in the literature
• analyze methodological issues

When to Use It: According to Toronto & Remington (2020) , Whittmore & Knafl (2005) , and Broome (2000)  an integrative review approach is best suited for:

• A research scope focused more broadly at a phenomenon of interest rather than a systematic review and allows for diverse research, which may contain theoretical and methodological literature to address the aim of the review.
• Supporting a wide range of inquiry, such as defining concepts, reviewing theories, or analyzing methodological issues.
• Examining the complexity of nursing practice more broadly by using diverse data sources.

The following stages of conducting an integrative review are derived from  Whittemore & Knafl (2005) .

Timeframe:  12+ months

*Varies beyond the type of review. Depends on many factors such as but not limited to: resources available, the quantity and quality of the literature, and the expertise or experience of reviewers" ( Grant & Booth, 2009 ).

Question:  Formulation of a problem, may be related to practice and/or policy especially in nursing.

Is your review question a complex intervention?  Learn more about  Reviews of Complex Interventions .

Sources and searches:  Comprehensive but with a specific focus, integrated methodologies-experimental and non-experimental research. Purposive Sampling may be employed. Database searching is recommended along with grey literature searching. "Other recommended approaches to searching the literature include ancestry searching, journal hand searching, networking, and searching research registries." Search is transparent and reproducible.

Selection:  Selected as related to problem identified or question, Inclusion of empirical and theoretical reports and diverse study methodologies. 

Appraisal:  "How quality is evaluated in an integrative review will vary depending on the sampling frame." Limited/varying methods of critical appraisal and can be complex. "In a review that encompasses theoretical and empirical sources, two quality criteria instruments could be developed for each type of source and scores could be used as criteria for inclusion/exclusion or as a variable in the data analysis stage."

Synthesis:  Narrative synthesis for qualitative and quantitative studies. Data extracted for study characteristics and concept. Synthesis may be in the form of a table, diagram or model to portray results. "Extracted data are compared item by item so that similar data are categorized and grouped together."  

The method consists of:

• data reduction
• data display
• data comparison
• conclusion drawing,
• verification 

The following resources are considered to be the best guidance for conduct in the field of integrative reviews.

Methods & Guidance

• Hopia, H., Latvala, E., & Liimatainen, L. (2016). Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review .  Scandinavian journal of caring sciences ,  30 (4), 662–669. doi: 10.1111/scs.12327
• Russell C. L. (2005). An overview of the integrative research review .  Progress in transplantation ,  15 (1), 8–13. doi: 10.1177/152692480501500102
• Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology .  Journal of advanced nursing ,  52 (5), 546–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Reporting Guideline

There is currently no reporting guideline for integrative reviews.

• Collins, J. W., Zoucha, R., Lockhart, J. S., & Mixer, S. J. (2018). Cultural aspects of end-of-life care planning for African Americans: an integrative review of literature .  Journal of transcultural nursing ,  29 (6), 578–590. doi: 10.1177/1043659617753042
• Cowdell, F., Booth, A., & Appleby, B. (2017). Knowledge mobilization in bridging patient-practitioner-researcher boundaries: a systematic integrative review protocol .  Journal of advanced nursing ,  73 (11), 2757–2764. doi: 10.1111/jan.13378
• Frisch, N. C., & Rabinowitsch, D. (2019). What's in a definition? Holistic nursing, integrative health care, and integrative nursing: report of an integrated literature review .  Journal of holistic nursing ,  37 (3), 260–272. doi: 10.1177/0898010119860685
• Kim, J., Kim, Y. L., Jang, H., Cho, M., Lee, M., Kim, J., & Lee, H. (2020). Living labs for health: an integrative literature review .  European journal of public health ,  30 (1), 55–63. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz105
• Luckett, T., Sellars, M., Tieman, J., Pollock, C. A., Silvester, W., Butow, P. N., Detering, K. M., Brennan, F., & Clayton, J. M. (2014). Advance care planning for adults with CKD: a systematic integrative review .  American journal of kidney diseases ,  63 (5), 761–770. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.12.007
• Shinners, L., Aggar, C., Grace, S., & Smith, S. (2020). Exploring healthcare professionals' understanding and experiences of artificial intelligence technology use in the delivery of healthcare: an integrative review .  Health informatics journal ,  26 (2), 1225–1236. doi: 10.1177/1460458219874641
• Silva, D., Tavares, N. V., Alexandre, A. R., Freitas, D. A., Brêda, M. Z., Albuquerque, M. C., & Melo, V. L. (2015). Depressão e risco de suicídio entre profissionais de Enfermagem: revisão integrative [Depression and suicide risk among nursing professionals: an integrative review] .  Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P ,  49 (6), 1027–1036. doi: 10.1590/S0080-623420150000600020
• Stormacq, C., Van den Broucke, S., & Wosinski, J. (2019). Does health literacy mediate the relationship between socioeconomic status and health disparities? integrative review .  Health promotion international ,  34 (5), e1–e17. doi: 10.1093/heapro/day062
• Broome M.E. (1993). Integrative literature reviews for the development of concepts. In Rodgers, B. L., & Knafl, K. A. (Eds.),  Concept development in nursing  (2nd ed., pp. 231-250). W.B. Saunders Company.
• da Silva, R. N., Brandão, M., & Ferreira, M. A. (2020). Integrative Review as a Method to Generate or to Test Nursing Theory .  Nursing science quarterly ,  33 (3), 258–263. doi: 10.1177/0894318420920602
• Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews .  Journal of clinical epidemiology ,  130 , 13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies .  Health information and libraries journal ,  26 (2), 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Toronto, C. E., & Remington, R. (2020).  A Step-By-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review.  Springer International Publishing AG. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1

• Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples .  Human Resource Development Review, 4 (3), 356–367. doi: 10.1177/1534484305278283
• Whittemore. (2007). Rigour in Integrative Reviews . In Webb, C., & Roe, B. (Eds.),  Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (pp. 149–156). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692127.ch11
• << Previous: Mapping Review
• Next: Rapid Review >>

Other Names for an Integrative Review

• Integrative Literature Review
• Systematic Integrative Review
• Integrative Research Review

Limitations of an Integrative Review

The following challenges of integrative reviews are derived from Toronto & Remington (2020) , Whitmore & Knafl (2005) , and Broome (2000) .

• The combination and complexity of incorporating diverse methodologies can contribute to lack of rigor, inaccuracy, and bias.
• Methods of analysis, synthesis, and conclusion-drawing remain poorly formulated.
• Combining empirical and theoretical reports can be difficult.
• There is no current guidance on reporting.

Medical Librarian

• Last Updated: Sep 5, 2023 11:14 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uh.edu/reviews

Integrative review: what is it? How to do it?

Affiliation.

• 1 Faculdade de Enfermagem do Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein - FEHIAE, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
• PMID: 26761761
• DOI: 10.1590/S1679-45082010RW1134

Introduction: The integrative review is the methodology that provides synthesis of knowledge and applicability of results of significant studies to practice.

Objective: To present the phases of an integrative review and the relevant aspects to be taken into account when using this methodological resource.

Methods: This study was based on bibliographic search and on the experience of the authors when performing an integrative review.

Results: Presentation of the six stages of the integrative review process: preparing the guiding question, searching or sampling the literature, data collection, critical analysis of the studies included, discussion of results and presentation of the integrative review.

Conclusions: Considering the need to assure care based on scientific evidence, the integrative review has been identified as a unique tool in healthcare for it synthesizes investigations available on the given topic and guides practice based on scientific knowledge.