Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems

Open access
Dixon‐Woods, Mary, Fitzpatrick, Ray, Roberts, Karen·2001·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Qualitative research has been increasingly recognized in recent years as having a distinctive and important contribution to make to health care research. It is capable of being used as a methodologically sufficient approach in its own right, as a precursor to quantitative studies, during or after trials to explain processes and outcomes, and as a means of enhancing the link between evidence and practice. However, qualitative research has been little used as an evidence resource for systematic reviews. We argue that formal synthesis of both qualitative and quantitative forms of research is essential, and we discuss some of the problems that need to be overcome in carrying out such syntheses. These include methodological prejudice, problems in searching for qualitative evidence, and issues in synthesizing qualitative data. We call for progress to be made on the science and methods of including qualitative research in the evidence base of medicine.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Antman E.M., 1992, A comparison of results of meta‐analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction., Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 240, 10.1001/jama.1992.03490020088036 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00232-9 · DOI
  3. 10.1136/jech.48.5.425-a · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1996.tb00041.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1136/bmj.318.7185.711 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Brooks D., 2000, Changing Practice in Health and Social Care, 37
  7. 10.4324/9780203410028 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1136/bmj.317.7159.637 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00077-x · DOI
  10. 10.1002/14651858.CD000081 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1093/fampra/15.6.556 · DOI
  12. Clarke M., 1999, Review Manager (Revman) [Computer Program], Version 4.0.
  13. 10.1136/bmj.317.7166.1130 · DOI
  14. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists (FTT) Collaborative Group, 1994, Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients., Lancet, 343, 311, 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91161-4 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1996.tb00036.x · DOI
  16. 10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1230 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Greenhalgh T., 1997, How to Read a Paper. The basics of EBM
  18. 10.1136/bmj.320.7240.954 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.30 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hodnett E.D., 2000, Caregiver Support for Women During Childbirth.
  21. 10.1177/104973239600600407 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1136/bmj.311.6996.2 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09936.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. Marchand L., 1994, Infant feeding practices: understanding the decision‐making process., Family Medicine, 26, 319
  25. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00103.x · DOI
  26. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1998.tb00084.x · DOI
  27. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1999.00205.x · DOI
  28. 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00008 · DOI
  29. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), 1996, Guidelines for Those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews
  30. 10.4135/9781412985000 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Oppenheim A.N., 1992, Questionnaire Design, Inter‐viewing, and Attitude Measurement
  32. Popay J., 1998, Qualitative research and evidence‐based health care., Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 91, 32, 10.1177/014107689809135S08 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1177/104973239800800305 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Ragin C.C., 1987, The Comparative Method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies.
  35. Roberts K., 1999, The Best Evidence for Health Care: The Role of the Cochrane Collaboration.
  36. 10.1136/bmj.316.7137.1060 · DOI
  37. Schofield J.W., 1990, Qualitative enquiry in education, 221
  38. 10.1093/eurpub/7.4.379 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Sikorski J., 1999, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3.
  40. 10.3310/hta2190 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1016/S0266-6138(98)90004-3 · DOI
  42. 10.2307/2391997 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 298

Metadata

Authors
Dixon‐Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R., & Roberts, K.
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-05
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
125-133
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x
OpenAlex
W1508276673
Cited by
298
References
5
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 2624 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x
The paper
Dixon‐Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R., & Roberts, K. (2001). Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.