Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41635944›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2026

The inclusion or exclusion of studies based on critical appraisal results in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: An analysis of practices.

Romy Menghao Jia, Cindy Stern

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

2 authors.

Romy Menghao JiaJBI, School of Public Health, https://ror.org/00892tw58The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7558-8708
Cindy SternJBI, School of Public Health, https://ror.org/00892tw58The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0924-5042

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critical appraisal is a core component of JBI qualitative evidence synthesis, offering insights into the quality of included studies and their potential influence on synthesized findings. However, limited guidance exists on whether, when, and how to exclude studies based on appraisal results. This study examined the methods used in JBI qualitative systematic reviews and the implications for synthesized findings. In this study, a systematic analysis of qualitative reviews published between 2018 and 2022 in

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansReproducibility of Resultscritical appraisalevidence synthesisqualitative systematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID41635944
PMCPMC12873616

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.