ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Tools for assessing the methodological limitations of a QES-a short note.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing prevalence and application of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) in decision-making processes underscore the need for robust tools to assess the methodological limitations of a completed QES. This commentary discusses the limitations of three existing tools and presents the authors' efforts to address this gap. Through a simple comparative analysis, the three tools are examined in terms of their coverage of essential topic areas. The examination finds that existing assessment tools lack comprehensive coverage, clarity, and grounding in qualitative research principles. The authors advocate for the development of a new collaboratively developed evidence-based tool rooted in qualitative methodology and best practice methods. The conclusion emphasizes the necessity of a tool that can provide a comprehensive judgement on the methodological limitations of a QES, addressing the needs of end-users, and ultimately enhancing the trustworthiness of QES findings in decision-making processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.