Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026

Using Visual and Narrative Methods to Achieve Fair Process in Clinical Care
Published on: February 16, 2011
"Distorted into clarity": a methodological case study illustrating the paradox of systematic review
Margarete Sandelowski1, Corrine I Voils, Julie Barroso
1University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract:
Systematic review is typically viewed in the health sciences as the most objective--that is, rigorous, transparent, and reproducible--method for summarizing the results of research. Yet, recent scholarship has shown systematic review to involve feats of interpretation producing less certain, albeit valuable, results. We found this to be the case when we tried to overcome the resistance to synthesis of a set of qualitative and quantitative findings on stigma in HIV-positive women. These findings were difficult to combine largely because of fuzzy conceptualizations of stigma and the volume of unique quantitative findings. Our encounter with findings resistant to synthesis heightened our awareness of the extent to which all systematic reviews are accomplished by practices that paradoxically "distort [research findings] into clarity."
Related Concept Videos
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Case Studies
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Blind Procedures
Bias in Epidemiological Studies