Evolution of methodology for textual evidence systematic reviews
New paper explains recent changes
“It is now widely recognized that an inclusive approach to evidence to inform policy and practice is necessary. Although methodologies for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence are well established, the synthesis of non-research evidence remains relatively new.”
JBI Evidence Synthesis has released a paper providing an overview of the revised JBI methodology for systematic reviews of textual evidence. This paper is the first in a series of three papers and is published in a special issue of JBI Evidence Synthesis. The special issue of the journal coincides with JBI Methodology Month, a digital media campaign which aims to advance the quality of systematic reviews.
The paper, titled Textual evidence systematic reviews series paper 1: introduction to the revised JBI methodology and overview of recent changes, presents a fundamental re-conceptualisation of JBI's approach to the synthesis of textual evidence.
Acknowledging the increasing recognition of an inclusive approach to evidence for informing policy and practice, the authors highlight the evolution of JBI's methodology since its initial development in 2004. The revision draws upon discourse analysis to better inform and understand the value of textual data.
Key aspects of the revised methodology highlighted in this paper include a re-definition of textual evidence so that textual data is now defined as "documented communication sources (other than research) that inform decision making". This revised definition aims to objectively manage discourse from a range of sources, including narrative, expert opinion, and policy.
Terminology is clarified in the revised methodology, and the paper clarifies that 'text' is now understood as the mechanism through which narrative, opinion, and policy are expressed, rather than an independent data subset.
JBI continues to assert that textual data is a legitimate source of evidence, particularly where no other evidence exists. Furthermore, the revised methodology acknowledges that textual evidence may play a broader role, potentially complementing other forms of evidence by helping to unpack or better understand them. The paper provides guidance on selecting the appropriate type of textual source (narrative, expert opinion, or policy) to answer specific research questions, recommending an inclusive approach where feasible.
The authors underscore the importance of applying the same critical lens to textual evidence as would be applied to any other form of evidence. The introduction of this revised methodology reflects the proliferation of textual evidence and the need for updated guidelines to address challenges faced by researchers in completing reviews of this nature.
JBI aims to enhance the rigour and reliability of this important methodology, ensuring that systematic reviews can serve as trustworthy sources of evidence for informed decision-making in healthcare and beyond. This paper highlights a significant advancement in the field of evidence synthesis, providing clearer definitions, terminology, and guidance for researchers seeking to incorporate non-research evidence into their reviews.
The full series of papers which will be published in future issues of JBI Evidence Synthesis promises to offer supplementary support for conducting high-quality systematic reviews of textual evidence. Comprehensive, step-by-step- guidance for conducting systematic reviews of textual evidence is available in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.
McArthur, Alexa; Cooper, Adam; Edwards, Deborah; Klugarova, Jitka; Yan, Hu; Barber, Brittany V.; Gregg, Emily E.; Weeks, Lori E.; Jordan, Zoe Less
JBI Evidence Synthesis. 23(3):423-428, March 2025.