Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28794545›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of dermatology

Methodology Series Module 10: Qualitative Health Research.

Maninder Singh Setia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of dermatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Motivating Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women in Spain to Avoid Persistent Toxic Substances in Their Diet.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Maninder Singh SetiaMGM Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although quantitative designs are commonly used in clinical research, some studies require qualitative methods. These designs are different from quantitative methods; thus, researchers should be aware of data collection methods and analyses for qualitative research. Qualitative methods are particularly useful to understand patient experiences with the treatment or new methods of management or to explore issues in detail. These methods are useful in social and behavioral research. In qualitative research, often, the main focus is to understand the issue in detail rather than generalizability; thus, the sampling methods commonly used are purposive sampling; quota sampling; and snowball sampling (for hard to reach groups). Data can be collected using in-depth interviews (IDIs) or focus group discussions (FGDs). IDI is a one-to-one interview with the participant. FGD is a method of group interview or discussion, in which more than one participant is interviewed at the same time and is usually led by a facilitator. The commonly used methods for data analysis are: thematic analysis; grounded theory analysis; and framework analysis. Qualitative data collection and analysis require special expertise. Hence, if the reader plans to conduct qualitative research, they should team up with a qualitative researcher.

Indexed as

Focus group discussionsframework analysisqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID28794545
PMCPMC5527715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.