Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29384079›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series.

Simon Lewin, Andrew Booth, Claire Glenton, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Arash Rashidian, Megan Wainwright, Meghan A Bohren, Özge Tunçalp, Christopher J Colvin, Ruth Garside and 3 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 614 papers, 88 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
614citing papers in PubMed, 88 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

614 citing papers in PubMed, 88 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. Women's Causal Beliefs About Their Pelvic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Patients' experiences with musculoskeletal spinal pain: a qualitative systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Pooled it

554 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors.

Simon LewinNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. simon.lewin@fhi.no.
Andrew BoothSchool of Health & Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Claire GlentonNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Heather Munthe-KaasNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Arash RashidianDepartment of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Megan WainwrightDivision of Social and Behavioural Sciences, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Meghan A BohrenUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Özge TunçalpUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Christopher J ColvinDivision of Social and Behavioural Sciences, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Ruth GarsideEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Benedicte CarlsenUni Research Rokkan Centre, Bergen, Norway.
Etienne V LangloisAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jane NoyesSchool of Social Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The GRADE-CERQual ('Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research') approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners.

Indexed as

Data AccuracySystematic Reviews as TopicBiomedical ResearchConfidence IntervalsDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPublishingQualitative ResearchConfidenceEvidence-based practiceGRADEGuidanceMethodologyQualitative evidence synthesisQualitative researchRecommendations for practiceResearch designSystematic review methodology

Identifiers

PMID29384079
PMCPMC5791040

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.