Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools

Majid, Umair; Vanstone, Meredith

doi:10.1177/1049732318785358

Cited by 201 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, it is likely that not all critical appraisal tools were included in the literature review because the search strategy did not include tools published in books and developed after 2015. For example, two recent literature reviews on tools for qualitative studies analyzed more than 100 tools [19,47]. Also, we limited our review to tools that had been validated or tested for reliability.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study

Hong

Pluye

Fàbregues

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

537

306

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was developed for critically appraising different study designs. This study aimed to improve the content validity of three of the five categories of studies in the MMAT by identifying relevant methodological criteria for appraising the quality of qualitative, survey, and mixed methods studies.Study Design and Setting: First, we performed a literature review to identify critical appraisal tools and extract methodological criteria. Second, we conducted a two-round modified e-Delphi technique. We asked three method-specific panels of experts to rate the relevance of each criterion on a five-point Likert scale.Results: A total of 383 criteria were extracted from 18 critical appraisal tools and a literature review on the quality of mixed methods studies, and 60 were retained. In the first and second rounds of the e-Delphi, 73 and 56 experts participated, respectively. Consensus was reached for six qualitative criteria, eight survey criteria, and seven mixed methods criteria. These results led to modifications of eight of the 11 MMAT (version 2011) criteria. Specifically, we reformulated two criteria, replaced four, and removed two. Moreover, we added six new criteria.Conclusion: Results of this study led to improve the content validity of this tool, revise it, and propose a new version (MMAT version 2018). Ó

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study

Hong

Pluye

Fàbregues

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

537

306

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We assessed the relevance of included studies in the synthesis. For the purposes of this interpretive review, we applied a low threshold of relevance to maximise the inclusion and contribution of a wide variety of papers that address the objectives of this synthesis [24]. We did not perform an appraisal of quality because the core objective is the development of a theoretical framework based on insights and interpretation drawn from relevant sources, rather than those that meet particular quality criteria.…”

Section: Article Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting the use of research evidence in decision-making in crisis zones in low- and middle-income countries: a critical interpretive synthesis

Khalid

Lavis

El‐Jardali

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Decision-makers in crisis zones are faced with the challenge of having to make health-related decisions under limited time and resource constraints and in light of the many factors that can influence their decisions, of which research evidence is just one. To address a key gap in the research literature about how best to support the use of research evidence in such situations, we conducted a critical interpretive synthesis approach to develop a conceptual framework that outlines the strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones. Methods: We systematically reviewed both empirical and non-empirical literature and used an interpretive analytic approach to synthesise the results and develop the conceptual framework. We used a 'compass' question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SSCI and Web of Science. A second reviewer was assigned to a representative sample of articles. We purposively sampled additional papers to fill in conceptual gaps. Results: We identified 21 eligible papers to be analysed and purposively sampled an additional 6 to fill conceptual gaps. The synthesis resulted in a conceptual framework that focuses on evidence use in crisis zones examined through the lens of four systemspolitical, health, international humanitarian aid and health research. Within each of the four systems, the framework identifies the most actionable strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use. Conclusions: This study presents a new conceptual framework that outlines strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones within different systems. This study expands on the literature pertaining to evidence-informed decision-making.

show abstract

“…Qualitative reviews are more difficult to appraise because the intuitive explorations and syntheses of evidence are essentially immeasurable and unsuitable for the restricted format of a checklist, Sandelowski likens qualitative synthesis to an art form based on “discriminating judgments… and constant improvisation” but without absolute principles. Unlike the principles of transparency, comprehensiveness and reproducibility supporting the rigour of meta‐analysis, a systematic qualitative synthesis relies heavily on the plausibility of evidence as the major criterion of appraisal .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care

MacEntee

2019

Gerodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The objectives of this paper are to (a) Review published references to systematic reviews; (b) offer a typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care; and (c) summarise the guides for designing, reporting and appraising the reviews. Background Systematic reviews play a role in finding, synthesising, transferring and implementing evidence for healthcare policy, practice guidelines and allocation of health resources. They have been particularly successful in confirming or synthesising evidence for health care by meta‐analysing aggregated data from multiple randomised controlled trials. However, concerns about the limitations of evidence from controlled trials have prompted interest in other review methods capable of locating and appraising evidence from more diverse, and possibly more realistic, healthcare situations. Methods An iterative citation‐tracking process with Google Search and grey literature identified 204 papers on previous typologies and methods of systematic reviews. Results and Conclusions There are six types of systematic reviews: narrative; meta‐analysis; scoping; qualitative; umbrella; and realist. Each type has distinct objectives, characteristics and attributes, but with much overlapping of methods and guides. Sensitivity to the need for qualitative evidence on complex human responses to ill‐health and health care has broadened the objectives and methods of health‐related systematic reviews to find, appraise and synthesis useful evidence for practice guidelines, healthcare policy and allocation of health resources.

show abstract

Appraising Qualitative Research for Evidence Syntheses: A Compendium of Quality Appraisal Tools

Cited by 201 publications

References 50 publications

Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study

Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study

Supporting the use of research evidence in decision-making in crisis zones in low- and middle-income countries: a critical interpretive synthesis

A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About