Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29384076›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias.

Andrew Booth, Simon Lewin, Claire Glenton, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Ingrid Toews, Jane Noyes, Arash Rashidian, Rigmor C Berg, Brenda Nyakang'o, Joerg J Meerpohl and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 13 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 13 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. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Andrew BoothSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Simon LewinNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. simon.lewin@fhi.no.
Claire GlentonNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Heather Munthe-KaasUnit for Social Welfare Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Ingrid ToewsCochrane Germany, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Jane NoyesSchool of Social Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Arash RashidianDepartment of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Rigmor C BergUnit for Social Welfare Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Brenda Nyakang'oInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Joerg J MeerpohlCochrane Germany, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
GRADE-CERQual Coordinating Team

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on a probable fifth component, dissemination bias. Given its exploratory nature, we are not yet able to provide guidance on applying this potential component of the CERQual approach. Instead, we focus on how dissemination bias might be conceptualised in the context of qualitative research and the potential impact dissemination bias might have on an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding. We also set out a proposed research agenda in this area.

methodsWe developed this paper by gathering feedback from relevant research communities, searching MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify and characterise the existing literature discussing or assessing dissemination bias in qualitative research and its wider implications, developing consensus through project group meetings, and conducting an online survey of the extent, awareness and perceptions of dissemination bias in qualitative research.

resultsWe have defined dissemination bias in qualitative research as a systematic distortion of the phenomenon of interest due to selective dissemination of studies or individual study findings. Dissemination bias is important for qualitative evidence syntheses as the selective dissemination of qualitative studies and/or study findings may distort our understanding of the phenomena that these syntheses aim to explore and thereby undermine our confidence in these findings. Dissemination bias has been extensively examined in the context of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of such studies. The effects of potential dissemination bias are formally considered, as publication bias, within the GRADE approach. However, the issue has received almost no attention in the context of qualitative research. Because of very limited understanding of dissemination bias and its potential impact on review findings in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses, this component is currently not included in the GRADE-CERQual approach.

conclusionsFurther research is needed to establish the extent and impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research and the extent to which dissemination bias needs to be taken into account when we assess how much confidence we have in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses.

Indexed as

BiasData AccuracyInformation DisseminationSystematic Reviews as TopicBiomedical ResearchConfidence IntervalsDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPublishingQualitative ResearchConfidenceDissemination biasEvidence-based practiceGRADEMethodologyPublication biasQualitative evidence synthesisQualitative researchResearch designSystematic review methodology

Identifiers

PMID29384076
PMCPMC5791043

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.