CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,216Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically

Hawker, Sheila, Payne, Sheila, Kerr, Christine, Hardey, Michael, Powell, Jackie·2002·Qualitative Health Research
DOI 10.1177/1049732302238251
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The authors describe a method of systematically reviewing research from different paradigms. They draw on the methods adapted, developed, and designed during a study concerned with the delivery of care across professional boundaries. Informed by the established method of systematic review, the authors undertook the review in distinct stages. They describe the methods developed for each stage and outline the difficulties encountered, the solutions devised, and the appraisal tools developed. Although many of the problems encountered were related to the critical assessment of qualitative research, the authors argue that the method of systematic review can be adapted for use with different data and across disciplines.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1049732302238251

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bond, S., 1993, Nursing: Arts and science seminars, 94
  2. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 1998, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)
  3. Chalmers, I., 1995, Systematic reviews
  4. Department of Health, 2000, NHS Plan: A plan for investment. A plan for reform
  5. Eysenck, H. J., 1995, Systematic reviews, 64
  6. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 1996, CRD Report Number 4. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness
  7. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2001). CRD Report Number 4 (2nd ed.). Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness . York, UK: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
  8. Oakley, A., School of Public Policy
  9. Payne, S., 2000, Delivering care across professional boundaries—The communication of information about elderly people between health and social care practitioners: Final report to the NHSE South East

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Palliative Care, Trent Palliative Care Centre, Sheffield, U.K.
ORCID
Payne, Sheila
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-11
Volume
12
Issue
9
Pages
1284-1299
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
DOI
10.1177/1049732302238251
OpenAlex
W2146030020
Cited by
1,216
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 110 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 137 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 28
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
systematic reviews, mixed methods, research paradigms, evidence appraisal, assessment instruments
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Health Services Research, Humans, Research, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine

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