The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Qualitative research in systematic reviews: Has established a place for itself
Open accessAbstract
The recent publication by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of the second edition of the guidance on undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness deserves to be warmly welcomed, for many reasons.1 Perhaps chief among these is the increased recognition given to the diverse types of evidence that can contribute to systematic reviews. This suggests that the rigid insistence on controlled trials as the sole source of evidence on effectiveness that characterised the beginnings of the evidence based healthcare movement is fading. Qualitative research is now given explicit consideration in the new guidance. This is consistent with other recent recommendations emphasising the contribution of qualitative evidence to healthcare evaluation.2 The argument for giving a place to qualitative research in systematic reviews seems to have been won. There remain several issues, however, that need to be addressed in making the role of qualitative evidence in reviews more systematic. The move to recognise the potential value of qualitative research could do much to address …
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474 · cited 1×
“Perhaps chief among these is the increased recognition given to the diverse types of evidence that can contribute to systematic reviews. This suggests that the rigid insistence on controlled trials as the sole source of evidence on effectiveness that characterised the beginnings of the evidence based healthcare moveme…”
Result
Cited by
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,245
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581960501000110 · Cited by 2,132
Self-citationMays, N., Pope, C., & Popay, J. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308576 · Cited by 1,375
Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732302238251 · Cited by 1,216
Metadata
- Authors
- Dixon-Woods, M., & Fitzpatrick, R.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-10-06
- Volume
- 323
- Issue
- 7316
- Pages
- 765-766
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1727593237
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Qualitative research in systematic reviews: Has established a place for itself. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.323.7316.765
- The paper
- Dixon-Woods, M., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2001). Qualitative research in systematic reviews: Has established a place for itself. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7316.765
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.
