SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2026
The Application of Classic Grounded Theory in Nursing Studies: A Qualitative Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 'Should We Start CPR?': How Iranian Nurses Make Resuscitation Decisions in Intensive Care Units?Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Advancing Equity-Oriented Nursing Research: Reflections on Integrating Intersectionality with Constructivist Grounded Theory.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
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
AIM(S): To explore the application of Classic Grounded Theory (GT) methodology in nursing research and critically appraise studies employing Classic GT against the validated framework Guideline for Reporting and Evaluating Grounded Theory (GUREGT) research studies.
designSystematic review without meta-analysis
methodsThe review followed the PRISMA statement and used the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline for data analysis. The quality of included articles was assessed using the CASP qualitative research appraisal tool, and the GUREGT framework was applied to evaluate adherence to Classic GT guiding principles. DATA SOURCES: Databases were PUBMED, CINAHL, Nursing and Allied Health Database (ProQuest).
resultsTwenty-nine studies from 2010 to 2024 met the inclusion criteria. Findings revealed inconsistencies in the reporting of Classic GT methodology in nursing research, with frequent omissions of key methodological elements. The GUREGT tool, while user-friendly and practical, highlights gaps in areas such as identifying the main concern, philosophical positioning, and engagement with the literature. These omissions can compromise methodological rigour, suggesting that further refinement of the GUREGT tool is necessary.
conclusionThe GUREGT tool provides a promising framework for improving the reporting and evaluation of Classic GT studies. However, its current version requires enhancement to fully address the unique demands of Classic GT and ensure rigorous application and reporting of the methodology. Development of a dedicated reporting guideline tailored to Classic GT is critical for advancing the quality of nursing research and supporting researchers in generating robust, theory-driven insights. IMPACT: Few studies critically appraise Classic GT methodology in health research. This review highlights the need for dedicated reporting guidelines to support methodological rigour and transparency in Classic GT studies. REPORTING
methodThis review adhered to EQUATOR reporting guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.