Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33588842›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies.

Reema Harrison, Benjamin Jones, Peter Gardner, Rebecca Lawton

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 249 papers, 92 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
249citing papers in PubMed, 92 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

249 citing papers in PubMed, 92 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. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Why aren't they used? Systematic review of barriers to implementation of clinical decision support systems for early cancer detection in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Avoidant-Restrictive Food Intake Disorder in Patients With Gastrointestinal Disorders: A Systematic Review.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Pooled it
  20. Systematic Review: The Psychosocial Impacts of Autism-Related Genetic Testing.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2026
    Pooled it

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Reema HarrisonSchool of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. reema.harrison@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8609-9827
Benjamin JonesSchool of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Peter GardnerSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Rebecca LawtonInstitute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research.

methodsSecondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD (n=197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses.

resultsKey limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research.

conclusionOur findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAdolescentAgedAged, 80 and overChildHumansQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsHealth services researchMixed-methods researchMulti-methods researchQuality appraisalSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33588842
PMCPMC7885606

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.