Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37902265›Full record

ReviewThe European journal of general practice2023

Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 7: Qualitative evidence synthesis for emerging themes in primary care research: Scoping review, meta-ethnography and rapid realist review.

Albine Moser, Irene Korstjens

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The European journal of general practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Albine MoserFaculty of Health Care, Research Centre Autonomy and Participation of Chronically Ill People, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4073-2890
Irene KorstjensFaculty of Health Care, Research Centre for Midwifery Science, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Zuyd University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article, the seventh in a series aiming to provide practical guidance for qualitative research in primary care, introduces qualitative synthesis research for addressing health themes in primary care research. Qualitative synthesis combines rigorous processes and authorial judgement to present the collective meaning of research outputs; the findings of qualitative studies - and sometimes mixed-methods and quantitative research - are pooled. We describe three exemplary designs: the scoping review, the meta-ethnography and the rapid realist review. Scoping reviews aim to provide an overview of the evidence/knowledge or to answer questions regarding the nature and diversity of the evidence/knowledge available. Meta-ethnographies intend to systematically compare data from primary qualitative studies to identify and develop new overarching concepts, theories, and models. Rapid realist reviews aim to provide a knowledge synthesis by looking at complex questions while responding to time-sensitive and emerging issues. It addresses the question, 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how?'We discuss these three designs' context, what, why, when and how. We provide examples of published studies and sources for further reading, including manuals and guidelines for conducting and reporting these studies. Finally, we discuss attention points for the research team concerning the involvement of necessary experts and stakeholders and choices to be made during the research process.

Indexed as

Anthropology, CulturalResearch DesignHumansPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchScoping Reviews as Topicmeta-ethnographyPrimary carequalitative synthesisrapid realist reviewscoping review

Identifiers

PMID37902265
PMCPMC10990260
OpenAlexW4388021437

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.