Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28979479›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2016

Qualitative research in critical care: Has its time finally come?

Michael Charlesworth, Bernard A Foëx

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Michael CharlesworthDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals, Manchester, UK.
Bernard A FoëxDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As clinicians, we are well acquainted with using randomised controlled trials, case-control studies and cohort studies together with p-values, odds ratios and confidence intervals to understand and improve the way in which we care for our patients. We have a degree of familiarity, trust and confidence with well-performed scientific quantitative studies in critical care and we make a judgment about our practice based on their recommendations. The same cannot be said of qualitative research, and its use accounts for only a small proportion of published studies in critical care. There are many research questions in our environment that lend themselves to a qualitative research design. Our positivistic education as doctors potentially incites distrust towards such studies and, as such, they are seldom undertaken in our units. We aim to describe and discuss the differences between quantitative and qualitative research with focus being given to common misunderstandings and misconceptions. An overview of the methods of data collection and analysis is provided with references towards published qualitative studies in critical care. Finally, we provide pragmatic and practical instruction and guidance for those wishing to undertake their own qualitative study in critical care.

Indexed as

epistemologymethodological qualityontologyQualitative methodology

Identifiers

PMID28979479
PMCPMC5606391

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.