The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers
Open accessAbstract
In 2007, the journal Qualitative Research published a review on qualitative evidence syntheses conducted between 1988 and 2004. It reported on the lack of explicit detail regarding methods for searching, appraisal and synthesis, and a lack of emerging consensus on these issues. We present an update of this review for the period 2005–8. Not only has the amount of published qualitative evidence syntheses doubled, but authors have also become more transparent about their searching and critical appraisal procedures. Nevertheless, for the synthesis component of the qualitative reviews, a black box remains between what people claim to use as a synthesis approach and what is actually done in practice. A detailed evaluation of how well authors master their chosen approach could provide important information for developers of particular methods, who seem to succeed in playing the game according to the rules. Clear methodological instructions need to be developed to assist others in applying these synthesis methods.
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
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312
Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2010) · Analyzing qualitative data · doi:10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_9 · Cited by 4,800
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., et al. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 · Cited by 2,289
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
Patient Adherence to Tuberculosis Treatment: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research
Munro, S. A., Lewin, S. A., Smith, H. J., Engel, M. E., Fretheim, A., & Volmink, J. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040238 · Cited by 1,080
Simkhada, B., Teijlingen, E. R. V., Porter, M., & Simkhada, P. (2008) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04532.x · Cited by 977
Dennis, C., & Chung‐Lee, L. (2006) · Birth · doi:10.1111/j.1523-536x.2006.00130.x · Cited by 881
Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking
Pound, P., Britten, N., Morgan, M., Yardley, L., Pope, C., Daker-White, G., & Campbell, R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.063 · Cited by 868
Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research
Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001) · doi:10.4135/9781412985017 · Cited by 664 · cited 1×
“Some referenced methodologists such as Paterson et al. (2001), while others refer to existing techniques such as critical interpretive synthesis, meta-ethnography or metaaggregation.”
BackgroundMills, E., Jadad, A. R., Ross, C., & Wilson, K. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.09.002 · Cited by 374
Cited by
Long, H. A., French, D. P., & Brooks, J. M. (2020) · Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences · doi:10.1177/2632084320947559 · Cited by 1,112
“Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method
Carroll, C., Booth, A., Leaviss, J., & Rick, J. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-37 · Cited by 649
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/hir.12276 · Cited by 570
Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance
France, E. F., Cunningham, M., Ring, N., Uny, I., Duncan, E. A. S., Jepson, R. G., Maxwell, M., Roberts, R. J., Turley, R. L., Booth, A., et al. (2019) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0 · Cited by 469
Self-citationSystems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field
Carey, G., Malbon, E., Carey, N., Joyce, A., Crammond, B., & Carey, A. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009002 · Cited by 432
Metadata
- Authors
- Hannes, K., & Macaitis, K.
- Venue
- Qualitative Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-05-11
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 402-442
- ISSN
- 1468-7941 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3109
- OpenAlex
- W2158883074
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 15.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1468794111432992
- The paper
- Hannes, K., & Macaitis, K. (2012). A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111432992
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.
