ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2024
Assessing qualitative data richness and thickness: Development of an evidence-based tool for use in qualitative evidence synthesis.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- "It Is a Vicious Circle": Experiences of People Living With Obesity and Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES).Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Gender differences in the context of interventions for improving health literacy in migrants: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Developing a core outcome set for intervention studies in post stroke cognitive impairment (COS-PSCI): a protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of interventions aimed at improving interprofessional collaboration: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Barriers and Facilitators of Nurses' Involvement in Guideline Development and Adaptation: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Protocol.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Celebrating qualitative research.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the cochrane library.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Review
- Conceptualising doctors' and nurses' experience of formal and informal solidarity: A Meta-Ethnography Protocol.HRB open research · 2025Article
- Assessing qualitative data richness and thickness: Development of an evidence-based tool for use in qualitative evidence synthesis.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Well-conducted qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) can provide invaluable insights into complex phenomena. However, the development of an in-depth understanding depends on the analysis of rich, thick data from the included primary qualitative studies. Sampling may be needed if there are too many eligible studies. Data richness and thickness are among several criteria that can be taken into consideration when sampling studies for inclusion. However, existing tools do not address explicitly the assessment of both data richness and thickness in the context of QES. Methods: To address this gap, we have developed, piloted, and conducted initial user testing of a richness and thickness assessment tool. The tool has been in development since 2014. Three pilot versions from three review teams have been used in six Cochrane reviews. Key members from the original three review teams subsequently came together to create a consensus-based definitive version 1 of the tool. Four review authors piloted the version 1 tool, which has been subject to initial user testing. The version 1 assessment tool consists of two components: assessing the thickness of contextual data and assessing the richness of conceptual data. The accompanying guidance emphasizes the importance of assessing data that addresses the review question. Results: The paper provides guidance on how to apply the tool, emphasizing the importance of reaching a consensus among review authors and fostering a shared understanding of what constitutes rich and thick data in the context of the review. The potential challenges related to the time and resource constraints of this additional review process are acknowledged. Conclusion: Version 1 of the tool represents a significant development in QES methodology, filling a critical gap and enhancing the transparency and rigor of the sampling process. The authors invite feedback from the research community to further test, refine and improve this tool based on wider user experiences.
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.