Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39385754›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in big data2024

Making the most of big qualitative datasets: a living systematic review of analysis methods.

Abinaya Chandrasekar, Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark, Sam Martin, Samantha Vanderslott, Elaine C Flores, David Aceituno, Phoebe Barnett, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Norha Vera San Juan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in big data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Abinaya Chandrasekar *Rapid Research, Evaluation, and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark *Rapid Research, Evaluation, and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sam MartinRapid Research, Evaluation, and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Samantha VanderslottOxford Vaccine Group, University of Oxford and NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Elaine C FloresCentre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
David AceitunoSchool of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Phoebe BarnettDepartment of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosRapid Research, Evaluation, and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Norha Vera San JuanRapid Research, Evaluation, and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Qualitative data provides deep insights into an individual's behaviors and beliefs, and the contextual factors that may shape these. Big qualitative data analysis is an emerging field that aims to identify trends and patterns in large qualitative datasets. The purpose of this review was to identify the methods used to analyse large bodies of qualitative data, their cited strengths and limitations and comparisons between manual and digital analysis approaches. Methods: A multifaceted approach has been taken to develop the review relying on academic, gray and media-based literature, using approaches such as iterative analysis, frequency analysis, text network analysis and team discussion. Results: The review identified 520 articles that detailed analysis approaches of big qualitative data. From these publications a diverse range of methods and software used for analysis were identified, with thematic analysis and basic software being most common. Studies were most commonly conducted in high-income countries, and the most common data sources were open-ended survey responses, interview transcripts, and first-person narratives. Discussion: We identified an emerging trend to expand the sources of qualitative data (e.g., using social media data, images, or videos), and develop new methods and software for analysis. As the qualitative analysis field may continue to change, it will be necessary to conduct further research to compare the utility of different big qualitative analysis methods and to develop standardized guidelines to raise awareness and support researchers in the use of more novel approaches for big qualitative analysis. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/hbvsy/?view_only=.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebig qualitative datadigital toolshealthcaremachine learningresearch methods

Identifiers

PMID39385754
PMCPMC11461344

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.