ArticleImplementation science : IS2018
Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of Decision-Making for Older Patients with Cancer Receiving Systemic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2026Pooled it
- Implementing electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Kidney Disease: a qualitative systematic review of barriers, enablers, and mechanisms.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patient's and healthcare provider's experiences with Opioid Maintenance Treatment (OMT): a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Qualitative evidence regarding the experience of receiving and providing care for mental health conditions in non-specialist settings in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of reviews.BMJ mental health · 2023Pooled it
- The impact of implementing patient-reported measures in routine maternity care: a systematic review.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Healthcare experiences of perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care: a mixed-method systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- A model explaining refugee experiences of the Australian healthcare system: a systematic review of refugee perceptions.BMC international health and human rights · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based recommendations for low back pain in clinical practice: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework.Implementation science : IS · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
- Experiences of restrictive practices in child and adolescent mental health inpatient care: an integrative review.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2026Review
- Protocol: Strategies to Enhance Inclusion in Informed Consent Practice for People With Vision and/or Hearing Support Needs: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Article
- What happens to qualitative studies initially presented as conference abstracts: A survey among study authors.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- How can we strengthen the fragile relationship between families with mental health needs and children's social care?Journal of family & child health · 2025Article
- Barriers and enablers to pharmacist involvement in social prescribing: a protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Methodological and Systematic Errors in Systematic Reviews in Health Domain: A Systematic Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.