Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29384080›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data.

Jane Noyes, Andrew Booth, Simon Lewin, Benedicte Carlsen, Claire Glenton, Christopher J Colvin, Ruth Garside, Meghan A Bohren, Arash Rashidian, Megan Wainwright and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 131 papers, 61 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 61 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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 61 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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
  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. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Examining the lived experience of dementia with Lewy bodies through qualitative research: A systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

71 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

16 authors.

Jane NoyesSchool of Social Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Andrew BoothSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. A.Booth@sheffield.ac.uk.
Simon LewinNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Benedicte CarlsenUni Research Rokkan Centre, Bergen, Norway.
Claire GlentonNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
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.
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.
Arash RashidianDepartment of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Megan WainwrightUni Research Rokkan Centre, Bergen, Norway.
Özge TunςalpEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Jacqueline ChandlerCochrane, Cochrane Central Executive, London, UK.
Signe FlottorpNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Tomas PantojaDepartment of Family Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile.
Joseph D TuckerUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Heather Munthe-KaasNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

Spurring Innovation in HIV Testing and Linkage: A Crowdsourcing Approach -Diversity SupplementR01AI114310 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI TUCKER, JOSEPH DAVID, WEI, CHONGYI · 2014 to 2018
$3.3M
Unintended and Intended Implications of HIV Cure: A Social and Ethical AnalysisR01AI108366 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RENNIE, STUART, TUCKER, JOSEPH DAVID · 2013 to 2017
$2.9M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI108366NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI114310World 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 CERQual's relevance component.

methodsWe developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application.

resultsWhen applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments.

conclusionsThis paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyReproducibility of ResultsSystematic Reviews as TopicBiomedical ResearchConfidence IntervalsDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPublishingQualitative ResearchConfidenceEvidence-based practiceGRADEGuidanceMethodologyQualitative evidence synthesisQualitative researchRelevanceResearch designSystematic review methodology

Identifiers

PMID29384080
PMCPMC5791042

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.