Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31125493›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2019

Semiautomated text analytics for qualitative data synthesis.

Emily Haynes, Ruth Garside, Judith Green, Michael P Kelly, James Thomas, Cornelia Guell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Gender and active travel: a qualitative data synthesis informed by machine learning.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

Emily HaynesEuropean Centre for Environment & Human Health, University of Exeter, Truro, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9193-7493
Ruth GarsideEuropean Centre for Environment & Human Health, University of Exeter, Truro, UK.
Judith GreenSchool of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Michael P KellyPrimary Care Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
James ThomasEPPI-Centre, Department of Social Science, University College London, London, UK.
Cornelia GuellEuropean Centre for Environment & Human Health, University of Exeter, Truro, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0105-410X

Funding

Academy of Medical Sciences and the Wellcome Trust HOP001\1051Department of Health 09/3001/06Department of Health 11/3005/07Medical Research Council MC_UP_1001/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Approaches to synthesizing qualitative data have, to date, largely focused on integrating the findings from published reports. However, developments in text mining software offer the potential for efficient analysis of large pooled primary qualitative datasets. This case study aimed to (a) provide a step-by-step guide to using one software application, Leximancer, and (b) interrogate opportunities and limitations of the software for qualitative data synthesis. We applied Leximancer v4.5 to a pool of five qualitative, UK-based studies on transportation such as walking, cycling, and driving, and displayed the findings of the automated content analysis as intertopic distance maps. Leximancer enabled us to "zoom out" to familiarize ourselves with, and gain a broad perspective of, the pooled data. It indicated which studies clustered around dominant topics such as "people." The software also enabled us to "zoom in" to narrow the perspective to specific subgroups and lines of enquiry. For example, "people" featured in men's and women's narratives but were talked about differently, with men mentioning "kids" and "old," whereas women mentioned "things" and "stuff." The approach provided us with a fresh lens for the initial inductive step in the analysis process and could guide further exploration. The limitations of using Leximancer were the substantial data preparation time involved and the contextual knowledge required from the researcher to turn lines of inquiry into meaningful insights. In summary, Leximancer is a useful tool for contributing to qualitative data synthesis, facilitating comprehensive and transparent data coding but can only inform, not replace, researcher-led interpretive work.

Indexed as

Pattern Recognition, AutomatedQualitative ResearchAlgorithmsData AccuracyDatabases, FactualData MiningData ScienceFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleNormal DistributionSoftwareUnited Kingdomdata poolingmachine learningqualitative data synthesissecondary analysissocial practicetext analyticstext mining

Identifiers

PMID31125493
PMCPMC6772124

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.