ArticleClinical nursing research2026
Avoiding Fragmentation and Salami Slicing in Mixed Methods Research.
Article in Clinical nursing research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mixed methods research (MMR) offers rich opportunities for doctoral inquiry, but its complexity demands careful navigation of design, data integration, and dissemination. For doctoral candidates, one under-recognised risk is the ethical and methodological challenge of fragmentation and salami-slicing practices that undermine the coherence and transparency central to MMR. Fragmentation involves separating components of a study across publications, while salami slicing divides a dataset into minimally contributive outputs, often misaligning with the original study design. This discussion paper addresses the implications of these practices in the context of doctoral research and supervision. It highlights the need for supervisory guidance in ethically planning publications, particularly in aligning dissemination with MMR design logic. Drawing on doctoral inquiry and supervisory discourse, the paper proposes design-informed strategies to help candidates and supervisors protect the integrity of MMR. In doing so, it contributes to the methodological literature by offering actionable guidance for ethically navigating dissemination within the context of complex, mixed methods doctoral projects.
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.