Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41626990›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2025

What happens to qualitative studies initially presented as conference abstracts: A survey among study authors.

Marwin Weber, Simon Lewin, Joerg J Meerpohl, Heather Menzies Munthe-Kaas, Rigmor Berg, Andrew Booth, Claire Glenton, Jane Noyes, Ingrid Toews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Marwin WeberInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center, https://ror.org/03vzbgh69University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Simon LewinCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research (CEIR), https://ror.org/046nvst19Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Joerg J MeerpohlInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center, https://ror.org/03vzbgh69University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Heather Menzies Munthe-KaasCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research (CEIR), https://ror.org/046nvst19Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Rigmor BergDivision of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Andrew BoothSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), Faculty of Health, https://ror.org/05krs5044University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Claire Glentonhttps://ror.org/05phns765Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
Jane NoyesSchool of Health Science, https://ror.org/006jb1a24Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Ingrid ToewsInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center, https://ror.org/03vzbgh69University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6955-9695

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Qualitative research addresses important healthcare questions, including patients' experiences with interventions. Qualitative evidence syntheses combine findings from individual studies and are increasingly used to inform health guidelines. However, dissemination bias-selective non-dissemination of studies or findings-may distort the body of evidence. This study examined reasons for the non-dissemination of qualitative studies. We identified conference abstracts reporting qualitative, health-related studies. We invited authors to answer a survey containing quantitative and qualitative questions. We performed descriptive analyses on the quantitative data and inductive thematic analysis on the qualitative data. Most of the 142 respondents were female, established researchers. About a third reported that their study had not been published in full after their conference presentation. The main reasons were time constraints, career changes, and a lack of interest. Few indicated non-publication due to the nature of the study findings. Decisions not to publish were largely made by author teams. Half of the 72% who published their study reported that all findings were included in the publication. This study highlights researchers' reasons for non-dissemination of qualitative research. One-third of studies presented as conference abstracts remained unpublished, but non-dissemination was rarely linked to the study findings. Further research is needed to understand the systematic non-dissemination of qualitative studies.

Indexed as

Abstracting and IndexingCongresses as TopicInformation DisseminationQualitative ResearchAuthorshipFemaleHumansPublication BiasPublishingResearch PersonnelSurveys and Questionnairesdissemination biasGRADEGRADE-CERQualpublication biasqualitative researchsurvey

Identifiers

PMID41626990
PMCPMC12657646

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.