ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2024
Developing CAMELOT for assessing methodological limitations of qualitative research for inclusion in qualitative evidence syntheses.
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 16 papers, 5 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Stakeholder Perspectives on the Integration of AI in Diabetes Care: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Views and experiences of weight management for people living with mobility‑limiting conditions, intellectual disabilities or severe mental illness: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The health-promoting experiences of storytellers in group-based digital storytelling workshops: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Health-Related Quality of Life Following Treatment for Testicular Cancer: A Qualitative Systematic Review.American journal of men's healthPooled it
- Toward a Unified Understanding: A Literature Review of Self-Care Conceptualization for the General Population.Health promotion perspectives · 2026Review
- Eyes wide open in the ICU: A scoping review of tools and strategies for situational awareness.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2026Article
- What influences the decision by primary care doctors to recommend cancer screening? A qualitative evidence synthesis.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Synthesis of qualitative evidence on community experiences and perceptions of Plasmodium knowlesi malaria and factors influencing prevention and healthcare-seeking behaviours in Malaysia.Malaria journal · 2026Review
- Well-being of health workers providing maternal and newborn care: A qualitative evidence synthesis.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- The Values and Preferences of People Living With Motor Neurone Disease (MND): A Systematic Review Protocol.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Weight-neutral interventions for people with obesity and the perspective of patients, carers and healthcare professionals: a mixed methods review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the cochrane library.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Review
- Perceptions and experiences of the prevention, identification and management of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Developing CAMELOT for assessing methodological limitations of qualitative research for inclusion in qualitative evidence syntheses.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Tools for assessing the methodological limitations of a QES-a short note.Systematic reviews · 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
Introduction: Qualitative evidence is increasingly incorporated into decision-making processes. Assessing the methodological limitations of primary studies is critical to making an overall assessment of confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) using GRADE-CERQual. Current critical appraisal tools were not developed specifically for use in Cochrane reviews or GRADE-CERQual, and few are evidence-based. The aim of CochrAne qualitative Methodological LimitatiOns Tool (CAMELOT) was to address this gap. Methods: We undertook this project in four stages: (1) systematic literature search to identify existing tools, (2) identification of evidence to support inclusion of potential CAMELOT domains (3) consensus survey to agree on the inclusion and definition of CAMELOT domains, and (4) human-centered design approach to develop and refine CAMELOT by exploring user experience. Results: CAMELOT is a new evidence-based tool for assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of primary qualitative research studies in a QES. CAMELOT is comprised of 12 domains: four Conclusion: CAMELOT provides review authors with a transparent and systematic method to assess methodological limitations of primary qualitative studies. CAMELOT incorporates qualitative principles and focuses on appropriateness of fit between
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.