Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27052213›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016

Meta-synthesis of qualitative research: the challenges and opportunities.

Mohammed A Mohammed, Rebekah J Moles, Timothy F Chen

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mohammed A MohammedFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. mmoh2116@uni.sydney.edu.au.
Rebekah J MolesFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Timothy F ChenFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthesis of qualitative studies is an emerging area that has been gaining more interest as an important source of evidence for improving health care policy and practice. In the last decade there have been numerous attempts to develop methods of aggregating and synthesizing qualitative data. Although numerous empirical qualitative studies have been published about different aspects of health care research, to date, the aggregation and syntheses of these data has not been commonly reported, particularly in pharmacy practice related research. This paper describes different methods of conducting meta-synthesis and provides an overview of selected common methods. The paper also emphasizes the challenges and opportunities associated with conducting meta-synthesis and highlights the importance of meta-synthesis in informing practice, policy and research.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchHealth Services ResearchHumansPharmacy ResearchHealthcare and pharmacy practice researchMeta-synthesisQualitative researchResearch methodology

Identifiers

PMID27052213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.