Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

3.2K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal 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...
3.2K
Bias01:22

Bias

5.7K
Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
5.7K
Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

742
Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:  
742
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

12.9K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
12.9K
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model01:15

Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model

644
The case management model is a multidisciplinary approach that involves healthcare professionals from diverse disciplines, such as physicians, nurses, therapists, social workers, and pharmacists, working collaboratively to address the various needs of patients. Each healthcare professional brings unique expertise and perspectives, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the patient's condition and tailoring treatment plans accordingly.
For example, a patient with a chronic...
644
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding01:25

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

168
Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
168

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Reliability of lung ultrasound in adult patients in emergency and intensive care settings: a systematic review protocol.

JBI evidence synthesis·2026
Same author

Guidance for Grading the Evidence in Quantitative Umbrella Reviews.

Journal of evidence-based medicine·2026
Same author

Learner-Educator Co-creation of Student Assessment in Health Professional Education Courses: A Scoping Review.

Campbell systematic reviews·2026
Same author

Barriers and Facilitators to Interest-Holder Engagement in Health Guideline Development: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.

Campbell systematic reviews·2026
Same author

Better Together: Tools to Aid Patient and Public Involvement in Evidence Synthesis and the Need for Consensus on Essential Reporting Items.

Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods·2026
Same author

Assessing the trustworthiness of health guidelines recommendations: the transparent, rigorous, useable, standardized, and trustworthy guide (TRUSTGUIDES) tools development.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Harms Reporting Was Frequently Incomplete or Discordant in Biomedical Randomized Trials Published in 2023: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Using an Open Science Checklist in Grant Proposal Reviews to Predict Reproducibility of Funded Publications.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same journal

A comparison of five statistical methods used to analyse longitudinal EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life scores in randomised controlled trials: a simulation study.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Sample Size Determination for Decision-centered Pragmatic Trials.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Many multicenter randomized controlled trials do not account for center effect: a methodological review.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Patient Acceptability of the Modified Zelen Approach to Randomized Trials - A Survey of the CAPS THA Cohort.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 28, 2025

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
08:36

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment

Published on: April 19, 2024

747

Five common pitfalls in mixed methods systematic reviews: lessons learned.

Lucylynn Lizarondo1, Cindy Stern1, Joao Apostolo2

  • 1JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, 55 Norwich House, King William Road, Adelaide, Australia.

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
|March 28, 2022
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Authors often deviate from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs) methodology. This analysis identifies common pitfalls and offers guidance for future MMSRs to ensure adherence to best practices.

Keywords:
Evidence synthesisMixed methods researchMixed methods review methodologyMixed methods systematic reviewResearch methodologySystematic review

More Related Videos

Optimization, Design and Avoiding Pitfalls in Manual Multiplex Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry
09:15

Optimization, Design and Avoiding Pitfalls in Manual Multiplex Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry

Published on: July 26, 2019

9.5K
The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
06:05

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

Published on: February 19, 2021

1.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 28, 2025

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
08:36

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment

Published on: April 19, 2024

747
Optimization, Design and Avoiding Pitfalls in Manual Multiplex Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry
09:15

Optimization, Design and Avoiding Pitfalls in Manual Multiplex Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry

Published on: July 26, 2019

9.5K
The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
06:05

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

Published on: February 19, 2021

1.4K

Area of Science:

  • Systematic Reviews
  • Mixed Methods Research
  • Evidence Synthesis

Background:

  • Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs) integrate quantitative and qualitative data.
  • The JBI methodology for MMSRs was revised in 2020.
  • Recent MMSRs show frequent deviations from the updated JBI methodology.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify common pitfalls in conducting MMSRs post-JBI methodology revision.
  • To provide direction for reviewers to avoid methodological deviations.
  • To aid MMSR users in recognizing potential issues in published reviews.

Main Methods:

  • Forward citation tracking of reviews published after the JBI MMSR guidance revision.
  • Examination of 17 identified reviews against the JBI MMSR methodology.
  • Identification and analysis of deviations from the prescribed methods.

Main Results:

  • Deviations were observed in the rationale for methodological approach selection.
  • Issues included incorrect synthesis and integration strategies.
  • Exclusion of primary mixed methods studies and lack of data transformation detail were noted.
  • Insufficient 'mixing' of quantitative and qualitative components was a common problem.

Conclusions:

  • Authors frequently deviate from the JBI MMSR methodology.
  • Common pitfalls include rationale, synthesis, data transformation, and integration issues.
  • Recommendations are provided to improve adherence and quality in future MMSRs.