Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 5: how to assess adequacy of 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 adequacy of data component.MethodsWe developed the adequacy of data component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual adequacy of data component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application.ResultsWhen applying CERQual, we define adequacy of data as an overall determination of the degree of richness and the quantity of data supporting a review finding. In this paper, we describe the adequacy component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess data adequacy in the context of a review finding as part of the CERQual approach. This guidance outlines the information required to assess data adequacy, the steps that need to be taken to assess data adequacy, and examples of adequacy assessments.ConclusionsThis paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of adequacy in the context of the CERQual approach. We approach assessments of data adequacy in terms of the richness and quantity of the data supporting each review finding, but do not offer fixed rules regarding what constitutes sufficiently rich data or an adequate quantity of data. Instead, we recommend that this assessment is made in relation to the nature of the finding. 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/s13012-017-0692-7) 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).…”

<p>A Comprehensive Scoping Review Protocol of Using Living Labs to Explore Needs and Solutions for Older Adults with Dementia</p>

“…63,64 Qualitative studies will be assessed using the "Qualitative evidence synthesis findings." 65,66 The risk of bias in retained studies will be assessed using the RoB 2 tool for bias assessment for randomized and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. 67,68 We will not exclude studies based on their quality assessment because we wish to provide a comprehensive overview of the available information and its extent.…”