SynthesisPloS one2025
Group discussions improve reliability and validity of rated categories based on qualitative data from systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Using social media data to improve specific urban park activities: the case of park camping.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Vasopressin 1a Receptor Antagonists for Pathological Aggression in Neurodegenerative and Other CNS Diseases.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Perspectives on Lyme disease among persons of color in the United States: Qualitative research findings.Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of literature reviews in the fields of ecology and conservation has increased dramatically in recent years. Scientists conduct systematic literature reviews with the aim of drawing conclusions based on the content of a representative sample of publications. This requires subjective judgments on qualitative content, including interpretations and deductions. However, subjective judgments can differ substantially even between highly trained experts that are faced with the same evidence. Because classification of content into codes by one individual rater is prone to subjectivity and error, general guidelines recommend checking the produced data for consistency and reliability. Metrics on agreement between multiple people exist to assess the rate of agreement (consistency). These metrics do not account for mistakes or allow for their correction, while group discussions about codes that have been derived from classification of qualitative data have shown to improve reliability and accuracy. Here, we describe a pragmatic approach to reliability testing that gives insights into the error rate of multiple raters. Five independent raters rated and discussed categories for 23 variables within 21 peer-reviewed publications on conservation management plans. Mistakes, including overlooking information in the text, were the most common source of disagreement, followed by differences in interpretation and ambiguity around categories. Discussions could resolve most differences in ratings. We recommend our approach as a significant improvement on current review and synthesis approaches that lack assessment of misclassification.
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.