Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: Is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed?

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 149-154

  Carroll, Christopher ^a   Booth, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Critical appraisal; Qualitative evidence synthesis; Quality assessment; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

DATA MINING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LITERATURE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

DATA ACCURACY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DATA MINING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84938680489     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1128     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Attree P 2006. The social costs of child poverty: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Children and Society 20: 54-66.
2. Boeije HR, van Wesel F, Alisic E. 2013. Making a difference: towards a method for weighing the evidence in qualitative synthesis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17: 657-663.
3. Britten N, Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, Daker-White G, Pill R, Yardley L. 2011. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technology Assessment 15(43): 1-164.
4. Carroll C, Booth A, Lloyd-Jones M. 2012. Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews. Qualitative Health Research 22: 1425-1434.
5. CONSORT. 2010. CONSORT statement. Transparent reporting of trials. Available at: http://www.consort-statement. org/.
6. Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton A. 2007a. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qualitative Research 7: 375-422.
7. Dixon-Woods M, Sutton A, Shaw R, Miller T, Smith J, Young B, Jones D. 2007b. Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. Journal of Health, Service, Research and Policy 12: 42-47.
8. Franzel B, Schwiegershausen M, Heusser P, Berger B. 2013. How to locate and appraise qualitative research in complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 13: 125.
9. Gallacher K, Jani B, Morrison D, Macdonald S, Blane D, Erwin P, May CR. et al. 2013. Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes-Methodological challenges and solutions. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13: 10.
10. Garside R. 2014. Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how? Innovation: European Journal of Social Sciences 27: 67-79.
11. Hannes K. Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. 2011. Chapter 4: critical appraisal of qualitative research. In Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C (eds.), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 1. Available from URL http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance. updated August 2011.
12. Hannes K, Macaitis K. 2012. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qualitative Research 12: 402-442.
13. Higgins JPT, Altman D, Goetzche P, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman A, et al. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343: d5928.
14. Morton RL, Tong A, Howard K, Snelling P, Webster AC. 2010. The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ 340: c112.
15. Noyes J, Popay J. 2007. Directly observed therapy and tuberculosis: how can a systematic review of qualitative research contribute to improving services? A qualitative meta-synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 57: 227-243.
16. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. 2005. Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health, Service, Research and Policy 10: 21-34.
17. Reeves BC, Higgins JPT, Ramsey C, Shea B, Tugwell P, et al. 2013. An introduction to methodological issues when including non-randomised studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Special Issue: Inclusion of Non-Randomized Studies in Systematic Reviews 4: 1-11.
18. Reiss S, Hermoni D, Van Raalte R, Dahan R, Borkan JM. 2007. Aggregation of qualitative studies-From theory to practice: patient priorities and family medicine/general practice evaluations. Patient Education and Counseling 65: 214-222.
19. Ridd M, Shaw A, Lewis G, Salisbury C. 2009. The patient-doctor relationship: a synthesis of the qualitative literature on patients' perspectives. British Journal of General Practice, 59: e116-e133.
20. Salzmann-Eriksen M 2013. IMPAD-22: A checklist for authors of qualitative nursing research manuscripts. Nurse Education Today 33: 1295-1300.
21. Thomas J, Harden A. 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8: 45.
22. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. 2007. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19: 349-357.
23. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. 2012. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ). BMC Medical Research Methodology 12: 181.
24. Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, Briggs M, Carr E, Andrews J, Barker K. 2013. 'Trying to pin down jelly' - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13: 46.
25. Vale CL, Tierney JF, Burdett S. 2013. Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews. BMJ 346: f1798.