Table 2 Summary of characteristics of different methods of updating the analysis and synthesis in a meta-ethnography
From: Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis
Method of updating the analysis and synthesis in a meta-ethnography | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics | Extend and renovate the house (add to and revise original) | Build a new house next door (do a new standalone meta-ethnography and compare to original) | Knock the house down and rebuild it (start again from scratch) |
Possible advantages | |||
 One coherent model, set of findings, conclusions (increases utility of output for end users) | ✓ | ✓ | |
 Can lead to new conceptual insights | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
 Allows innovation in analysis/synthesis process in update | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
 No arbitrary dividing date between literature in original and updated meta-ethnographies | ✓ | ✓ | |
 Efficient use of resource expended on original meta-ethnography | ✓ | ✓ | |
 Facilitates comparisons between two sets of literature from different time periods | ✓ | ||
 More easily done by a new team of reviewers | ✓ | ✓ | |
 Can implement methodological advances in meta-ethnography/qualitative reviewing | ✓ | ||
 Can improve quality and utility of poor quality original meta-ethnography | ✓ | ||
 Suitable if you have revised review question or study selection criteria | ✓ | ||
Possible disadvantages | |||
 Challenging for a new team of reviewers | ✓ | ||
 Update findings might be influenced by original findings, especially if done by original reviewers | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
 Can minimise influence of findings from original meta-ethnography, especially if done by new reviewers | ✓ | ||
 Lack of established methods for updating original analysis/synthesis | ✓ | ||
 More likely to have large number of articles to synthesise (>40 is challenging) | ✓ | ||