ArticleBMJ open2013
What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 250 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
250 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 460 citations in OpenAlex.
- The value of qualitative research in randomized controlled trials involving drugs and medical devices: a systematic mapping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic mapping review of qualitative research in paediatric otolaryngology.The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2026Pooled it
- Elder Clowning Interventions for Persons With Dementia in Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review and Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research.Dementia (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Aspiration pneumonia in nursing literature-a mapping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions to improve the mental health of women experiencing homelessness: A systematic review of the literature.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Use of mixed methods research in intervention studies to increase young people's interest in STEM: A systematic methodological review.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- It's Not Just What You Do but the Way You Do It: A Systematic Review of Process Evaluation of Interventions to Improve Gross Motor Competence.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Qualitative Synthesis of Young People's Experiences With Technology-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Exploring qualitative methods reported in registered trials and their yields (EQUITY): systematic review.Trials · 2018Pooled it
- The use of electronic alerts in primary care computer systems to identify the excessive prescription of short-acting betaNPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Factors that influence the provision of intrapartum and postnatal care by skilled birth attendants in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- Understanding factors that could influence feasibility and acceptability of brief CAT for adults who self-harm: A qualitative exploration using the theoretical framework of acceptability.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- A qualitative study exploring youth's experiences of hospital- and integrated community-based mental health services: the YouthCan IMPACT initiative.BMC psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Invasive urodynamic investigations in the management of women with refractory overactive bladder symptoms: FUTURE, a superiority RCT and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
190 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop an empirically based framework of the aspects of randomised controlled trials addressed by qualitative research.
designSystematic mapping review of qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials and published in peer-reviewed journals. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment, PsycINFO, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and ASSIA. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles reporting qualitative research undertaken with trials published between 2008 and September 2010; health research, reported in English.
results296 articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles focused on 22 aspects of the trial within five broad categories. Some articles focused on more than one aspect of the trial, totalling 356 examples. The qualitative research focused on the intervention being trialled (71%, 254/356); the design, process and conduct of the trial (15%, 54/356); the outcomes of the trial (1%, 5/356); the measures used in the trial (3%, 10/356); and the target condition for the trial (9%, 33/356). A minority of the qualitative research was undertaken at the pretrial stage (28%, 82/296). The value of the qualitative research to the trial itself was not always made explicit within the articles. The potential value included optimising the intervention and trial conduct, facilitating interpretation of the trial findings, helping trialists to be sensitive to the human beings involved in trials, and saving money by steering researchers towards interventions more likely to be effective in future trials.
conclusionsA large amount of qualitative research undertaken with specific trials has been published, addressing a wide range of aspects of trials, with the potential to improve the endeavour of generating evidence of effectiveness of health interventions. Researchers can increase the impact of this work on trials by undertaking more of it at the pretrial stage and being explicit within their articles about the learning for trials and evidence-based practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.