Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37491226›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2023

The use of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis: an evaluation of fidelity and reporting.

Megan Wainwright, Rana Islamiah Zahroh, Özge Tunçalp, Andrew Booth, Meghan A Bohren, Jane Noyes, Weilong Cheng, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Simon Lewin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. What helps or hinders adult cancer patients in accepting dietary interventions during chemotherapy? A qualitative synthesis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Experiences and Perceptions of Self-Harm in Rural-Dwelling Adults: A Rapid Review of Qualitative Evidence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Megan WainwrightDepartment of Anthropology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Health, Durham University, South Road, Durham, United Kingdom. megan@meganwainwright.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9584-9944
Rana Islamiah ZahrohGender and Women's Health Unit, School of Population and Global Health, Centre for Health Equity, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7831-2336
Özge TunçalpUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5370-682X
Andrew BoothFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4808-3880
Meghan A BohrenGender and Women's Health Unit, School of Population and Global Health, Centre for Health Equity, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4179-4682
Jane NoyesSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-5984
Weilong ChengMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5647-4614
Heather Munthe-KaasThe Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6051-9010
Simon LewinDivision of Health Services and Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research (CEIR), Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7521-9515

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) is a methodological approach to systematically and transparently assess how much confidence decision makers can place in individual review findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. The number of reviews applying GRADE-CERQual is rapidly expanding in guideline and other decision-making contexts. The objectives of this evaluation were, firstly, to describe the uptake of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis by review authors and, secondly, to assess both reporting of and fidelity to the approach.

methodsThe evaluation had two parts. Part 1 was a citation analysis and descriptive overview of the literature citing GRADE-CERQual. Authors worked together to code and chart the citations, first by title and abstract and second by full text. Part 2 was an assessment and analysis of fidelity to, and reporting of, the GRADE-CERQual approach in included reviews. We developed fidelity and reporting questions and answers based on the most recent guidance for GRADE-CERQual and then used NVivo12 to document assessments in a spreadsheet and code full-text PDF articles for any concerns that had been identified. Our assessments were exported to Excel and we applied count formulae to explore patterns in the data. We employed a qualitative content analysis approach in NVivo12 to sub-coding all the data illustrating concerns for each reporting and fidelity criteria.

results233 studies have applied the GRADE-CERQual approach, with most (n = 225, 96.5%) in the field of health research. Many studies (n = 97/233, 41.6%) were excluded from full fidelity and reporting assessment because they demonstrated a serious misapplication of GRADE-CERQual, for example interpreting it as a quality appraisal tool for primary studies or reviews. For the remaining studies that applied GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in review findings, the main areas of reporting concern involved terminology, labelling and completeness. Fidelity concerns were identified in more than half of all studies assessed.

conclusionsGRADE-CERQual is being used widely within qualitative evidence syntheses and there are common reporting and fidelity issues. Most of these are avoidable and we highlight these as gaps in knowledge and guidance for applying the GRADE-CERQual approach.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchData AccuracyDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPublishingQualitative ResearchDecision-makingEvaluationFidelityGRADE-CERQualMethodologyQualitative evidence synthesisQualitative researchReportingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37491226
PMCPMC10369711

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.