Cited by 248Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsDelphi Technique in Research

Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews

Carroll, Christopher, Booth, Andrew, Lloyd-Jones, Myfanwy·2012·Qualitative Health Research

Abstract

The role of critical appraisal of qualitative studies in systematic reviews remains an ongoing cause for debate. Key to such a debate is whether quality assessment can or should be used to exclude studies. In our study, we extended the use of existing criteria to assess the quality of reporting of studies included in two qualitative systematic reviews. We then excluded studies deemed to be inadequately reported from the subsequent analysis. We tested the impact of these exclusions on the overall findings of the synthesis and its depth or thickness. Exclusion of so-called inadequately reported studies had no meaningful effect on the synthesis. There was a correlation between quality of reporting of a study and its values as a source for the final synthesis. We propose that there is a possible case for excluding inadequately reported studies from qualitative evidence synthesis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1049732312452937

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Lloyd-Jones, M.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Published
2012-08-03
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
1425-1434
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
OpenAlex
W2161865743
Cited by
248
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
study exclusion, critical appraisal, quality assessment, reporting quality, qualitative evidence synthesis, sensitivity analysis
MeSH terms
Review Literature as Topic, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Qualitative Research

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