Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28830405›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

A scoping review of the potential for chart stimulated recall as a clinical research method.

Carol Sinnott, Martina A Kelly, Colin P Bradley

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. How Neonatologists Use Genetic Information.The Journal of pediatrics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pain assessment from Swedish nurses' perspective.Journal for specialists in pediatric nursing : JSPN · 2021
    Article
  19. GPs' mindlines on deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study in English general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  20. Operational failures and how they influence the work of GPs: a qualitative study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    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

3 authors.

Carol SinnottDepartment of General Practice, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. cs926@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8620-7461
Martina A KellyDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Colin P BradleyDepartment of General Practice, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChart-stimulated recall (CSR) is a case-based interviewing technique, which is used in the assessment of clinical decision-making in medical education and professional certification. Increasingly, clinical decision-making is a concern for clinical research in primary care. In this study, we review the prior application and utility of CSR as a technique for research interviews in primary care.

methodsFollowing Arksey & O'Malley's method for scoping reviews, we searched seven databases, grey literature, reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. We excluded studies on medical education or competence assessment. Retrieved citations were screened by one reviewer and full texts were ordered for all potentially relevant abstracts. Two researchers independently reviewed full texts and performed data extraction and quality appraisal if inclusion criteria were met. Data were collated and summarised using a published framework on the reporting of qualitative interview techniques, which was chosen a priori. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines informed the review report.

resultsFrom an initial list of 789 citations, eight studies using CSR in research interviews were included in the review: six from North America, one from the Netherlands, and one from Ireland. The most common purpose of included studies was to examine the influence of guidelines on physicians' decisions. The number of interviewees ranged from seven to twenty nine, while the number of charts discussed per interview ranged from one to twelve. CSR gave insights into physicians' reasoning for actions taken or not taken; the unrecorded social and clinical influences on decisions; and discrepancies between physicians' real and perceived practice. Ethical concerns and the training and influence of the researcher were poorly discussed in most of the studies. Potential pitfalls included the risk of recall, selection and observation biases.

conclusionsDespite the proven validity, reliability and acceptability of CSR in assessment interviews in medical education, its use in clinical research is limited. Application of CSR in qualitative research brings interview data closer to the reality of practice. Although further development of the approach is required, we recommend a role for CSR in research interviews on decision-making in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceClinical Decision-MakingPrimary Health CareResearch DesignFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMedical RecordsMental RecallQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsChart stimulated recallDecision makingGeneral practiceQualitative researchScoping review

Identifiers

PMID28830405
PMCPMC5567630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.