Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data

Abstract

BackgroundThe GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation.CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s relevance component.MethodsWe developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application.ResultsWhen applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments.ConclusionsThis paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perceptions and experiences of labour companionship: a qualitative evidence synthesis

“…We used the CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in the review findings (Colvin 2018; Glenton 2018; Lewin 2018a; Lewin 2018b; Munthe‐Kaas 2018; Noyes 2018). This approach, building on the GRADE approach (Schünemann 2017), and the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias (Higgins 2017), for Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions, is becoming the standard to assess confidence in the findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (Ames 2017; Bohren 2015a; Colvin 2013; Lewin 2015; Munabi‐Babigumira 2017; Odendaal 2015).…”

A meta-ethnography to understand the experience of living with urinary incontinence: ‘is it just part and parcel of life?’

“…A line of argument can incorporate similar and contrasting ideas from primary studies, thus allowing both reciprocal and refutational translation simultaneously, rather than choosing one or the other. We applied the GRADE-CERQual framework [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] to define our confidence in the themes entering the conceptual model as the framework was not designed to be applied to conceptual models. GRADE-CERQual suggest four domains: (1) 'Methodological limitations'; (2) 'Relevance'; (3) 'Adequacy of data' (the 'degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding'); (4) 'Coherence' (consistency across primary studies); and finally, an overall rating of confidence (high, moderate, low, very low).…”

Synthesising evidence on patient portals: a protocol for an umbrella review

“…For qualitative findings, we will apply GRADE–CERQual criteria to determine the confidence in evidence for each outcome 68–73. We will assign a score to each outcome according to the four domains: methodological limitations, coherence, relevance and adequacy.…”