Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 569

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review

Open access
Booth, Andrew·2016·Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting. METHODS: This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers. RESULTS: A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards. CONCLUSIONS: This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x

Cites

28 of 28 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 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 112

  1. Noyes J. Never mind the qualitative feel the depth! The evolving role of qualitative research in Cochrane intervention reviews. J Res Nurs. 2010;15:525. · DOI
  2. Petticrew M. Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from ‘what works’ to ‘what happens’. Syst Rev. 2015;4:36. · DOI
  3. Hannes K, Booth A, Harris J, Noyes J. Celebrating methodological challenges and changes: reflecting on the emergence and importance of the role of qualitative evidence in Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:84. · DOI
  4. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Gülmezoglu AM, Chandler J, Shepperd S, Pantoja T. Reviews of qualitative evidence: a new milestone for Cochrane. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;11, ED000073.
  6. Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K, Booth A. Chapter 20: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_20/20_qualitative_research_and_cochrane_reviews.htm . · DOI
  7. Booth A. Chapter 3: Searching for Studies. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C (editors), Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group, 2011. Available from URL http://qim.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance .
  8. Ramer SL. Site-ation pearl growing: methods and librarianship history and theory. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(3):397–400.
  9. Booth A. "Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(4):421–9.e205.
  10. Evans D. Database searches for qualitative research. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:290–3.
  11. Finfgeld-Connett D, Johnson ED. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(1):194–204. · DOI
  12. Flemming K, Briggs M. Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: evaluation of three strategies. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57(1):95–100. · DOI
  13. Grant MJ. How does your searching grow? A survey of search preferences and the use of optimal search strategies in the identification of qualitative research. Health Info Libr J. 2004;21:21–32. · DOI
  14. McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving qualitative studies in PsycINFO. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29:440–54. · DOI
  15. Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, Booth A, Wong R. Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Info Libr J. 2010;27:114–22. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Shaw RL, Booth A, Sutton A, Miller T, Smith J, Young B, et al. Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4:5. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Subirana M, Sola I, Garcia JM, Gich I, Urrutia G. A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:20–5. · DOI
  18. Wilczynski NL, Marks S, Haynes RB. Search strategies for identifying qualitative studies in CINAHL. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(5):705–10. · DOI
  19. Wong SSL, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative. Medinfo. 2004;107:311.
  20. Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R. Qualitative research in systematic reviews: has established a place for itself. BMJ. 2001;323:765. · DOI
  21. Mehdyzadeh H. Searching for the evidence: an introduction to social science information retrieval. London: Department for Culture Media and Sport; 2004.
  22. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Searching for and retrieving qualitative research reports. In: Sandelowski M, Barroso J, editors. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer; 2007. p. 35–74.
  23. Schucan Bird K, Tripney J. Systematic literature searching in policy relevant, inter-disciplinary reviews: an example from culture and sport. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(3):163–73. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, et al. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006;6:27–44. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Petticrew M, Roberts H. How to find the studies: the literature search. In: Petticrew M, Roberts H, editors. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2006. p. 79–124. · DOI
  26. Ring N, Jepson R, Ritchie K. Methods of synthesising qualitative research for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:384–90. · DOI
  27. Ring NA, Ritchie K, Mandava L, Jepson R. A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. Scotland: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS); 2011.
  28. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods NCRM Working Paper Series. Number (01/09). London: Institute of Education; 2009. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Research Methodol. 2009;9(1):59. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Booth A. Acknowledging a dual heritage for qualitative evidence synthesis: harnessing the qualitative research and systematic review research traditions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield). Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2013.
  31. Hannes K, Macaitis K. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qual Res. 2012;12(4):402–42. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Gallacher K, Jani B, Morrison D, Macdonald S, Blane D, Erwin P, et al. Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes—methodological challenges and solutions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:10. · DOI
  33. Lorenc T, Pearson M, Jamal F, Cooper C, Garside R. The role of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in evaluating interventions: a case study. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(1):1–10. · DOI
  34. Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, Roberts K. Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000;7:125–33. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Gorecki C, Brown JM, Briggs M, Nixon J. Evaluation of five search strategies in retrieving qualitative patient-reported electronic data on the impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66:645–52. · DOI
  36. Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, Briggs M, Carr E, Barker K. Meta-ethnography 25 years on: challenges and insights for synthesising a large number of qualitative studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):80. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Booth, A, Papaioannou, D, Sutton, A J. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage publications Ltd; 2011.
  38. Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2012.
  39. Manning N. Conclusion. In: Hannes K, Lockwood C, editors. Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
  40. Jensen LA, Allen MN. Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qual Health Res. 1996;6(4):553–60. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C. Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20:365–71. · DOI
  42. Schreiber R, Crooks D, Stern PN. Qualitative meta-analysis. In: Morse JM, editor. Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1997. p. 311–26.
  43. Sherwood G. Meta-synthesis: merging qualitative studies to develop nursing knowledge. Int J Human Caring. 1999;3(1):37–42. · DOI
  44. Booth A. Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research? Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference, Taking a Critical Stance; May 14 – 16; Coventry University. 2001. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001724.htm . Accessed 18 Jun 2015.
  45. Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(4):671–84. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Doyle LH. Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qual Res. 2003;3(3):321–44. · DOI
  47. Finfgeld DL. Meta-synthesis: the state of the art—so far. Qual Health Res. 2003;13:893–904. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, Jones D, Sutton A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. London: Health Development Agency; 2004.
  49. McDermott E, Graham H, Hamilton V. Experiences of being a teenage mother in the UK: a report of a systematic review of qualitative studies. Lancaster: Lancaster University; 2004.
  50. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist synthesis: an introduction. Manchester: ESRC Research Methods Programme Working Paper Series; 2004.
  51. Ogilvie D, Hamilton V, Egan M, Petticrew M. Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(9):804–8. · DOI
  52. Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50:204–11. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Pawson R. Chapter 4—realist synthesis: new protocols for systematic review. In: Pawson R, editor. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage Publications; 2006. p. 73–104. · DOI
  54. Bondas T, Hall EOC. Challenges in approaching meta-synthesis research. Qual Health Res. 2007;17:113–21. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Briggs M, Flemming K. Living with leg ulceration: a synthesis of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs. 2007;59(4):319–28. · DOI
  56. Gough D. Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Res Pap Educ. 2007;22:2,213–228. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Weed MA. Potential method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research: issues in the development of meta-interpretation. Int J Social Res Methodol. 2007;11(1):13–28. · DOI
  58. Downe S. Metasynthesis: a guide to knitting smoke. Evid Based Midwifery. 2008;6:4–8.
  59. Corbin-Staton AP. Contexts of parental involvement: an interpretive synthesis of qualitative literature using the meta-interpretation method (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University). Washington DC: George Washington University; 2009.
  60. O’Connell R, Downe S. A metasynthesis of midwives’ experience of hospital practice in publicly funded settings: compliance, resistance and authenticity. Health (London). 2009;13:589–609. · DOI
  61. Brunton G, Wiggins M, Oakley A. Becoming a mother: a research synthesis of women’s views on the experience of first-time motherhood. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-2250. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council; 2010.
  62. Baxter S, Killoran A, Kelly M, Goyder E. Synthesising diverse evidence: the use of primary qualitative data analysis methods and logic models in public health reviews. Public Health. 2010;124(2):99–106. · DOI
  63. Brunton G, Stansfield C, Thomas J. Finding relevant studies. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. London: Sage Publications; 2012. p. 107–35.
  64. Wu YP, Aylward BS, Roberts MC, Evans SC. Searching the scientific literature: implications for quantitative and qualitative reviews. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012;32:553–7. · DOI
  65. Suri H. Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qual Res J. 2011;11:63–75. · DOI · Paper page
  66. Suri H. Towards methodologically inclusive research syntheses: expanding possibilities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2013. · doi:10.4324/9780203383193
  67. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, & Glanville J. Chapter 6: searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_6/6_searching_for_studies.htm . Accessed on 29 Apr 2016.
  68. Russell CK, Bunting SM, Gregory DM. Protective care-receiving: the active role of care recipients. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25:532–40. · DOI
  69. Barbour RS, Barbour M. Evaluating and synthesising qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9:179–86. · DOI
  70. Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007;7:375–422. · DOI · Paper page
  71. Coad J, Hardicre J, Devitt P. Searching for and using grey literature. Nurs Times. 2007;102:35–6.
  72. Saini M, Shlonsky A. Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. · DOI
  73. McFadden P, Taylor BJ, Campbell A, McQuilkin J. Systematically identifying relevant research case study on child protection social workers’ resilience. Res Soc Work Prac. 2012;22(6):626–36. · DOI
  74. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. JMLA. 2005;93:74–80.
  75. Franzel B, Schwiegershausen M, Heusser P, Berger B. How to locate and appraise qualitative research in complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2013;13(1):125. · DOI
  76. McGinn, T, Taylor B, McColgan M, McQuilkan J. Social work literature searching current issues with databases and online search engines. Res Social Work Practice, 2014; doi 10.1177/1049731514549423 . · DOI
  77. Stansfield C, Kavanagh J, Rees R, Gomersall A, Thomas J. The selection of search sources influences the findings of a systematic review of people's views: a case study in public health. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:55. · DOI
  78. Wright K, Golder S, Lewis-Light K. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? Syst Rev. 2015;4:104. · DOI
  79. Wildridge V, Bell L. How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Info Libr J. 2002;19:113–5. · DOI
  80. Booth A. Using research in practice: Australian supermodel? A practical example of evidence-based library and information practice. Health Info Libr J. 2006;23:69–72. · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00633.x
  81. Denyer D, Tranfield D. Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A, editors. The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2009. p. 671–89.
  82. Howell Major C, Savin-Baden M. Designing the synthesis In: Major, C. H., Savin-Baden, M. An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: managing the information explosion in social science research. London: Routledge; 2010. p. 43–55.
  83. Davies KS. Formulating the evidence based practice question: a review of the frameworks. Evid Based Libr Info Pract. 2011;6(2):75–80. · DOI
  84. Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. AJN: Am J Nurs. 2014;114:53–6. · DOI · Paper page
  85. Mackay G. Is there a need to differentiate between qualitative and quantitative searching strategies for literature reviewing? Qual Soc Work. 2007;6:231–41. · doi:10.1177/1473325007077257
  86. Glenton C, Lewin S, Scheel IB. Still too little qualitative research to shed light on results from reviews of effectiveness trials: a case study of a Cochrane review on the use of lay health workers. Implement Sci. 2011;6:53. · DOI
  87. Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters—a review. Health Info Libr J. 2004;21:148–63. · DOI
  88. Bates MJ. The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Rev. 1989;13:407–24. · DOI · Paper page
  89. Downe S, Simpson L, Trafford K. Expert intrapartum maternity care: a metasynthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57:127–40. · DOI
  90. Pearson M, Moxham T, Ashton K. Effectiveness of search strategies for qualitative research about barriers and facilitators of program delivery. Eval Health Prof. 2011;34:297–308. · DOI
  91. Booth A, Harris J, Croot E, Springett J, Campbell F, Wilkins E. Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:118. · DOI · Paper page
  92. Beahler CC, Sundheim JJ, Trapp NI. Information retrieval in systematic reviews: challenges in the public health arena. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18:6–10. · DOI
  93. Downe S, Finlayson K, Walsh D, Lavender T. ‘Weighing up and balancing out’: a meta-synthesis of barriers to antenatal care for marginalised women in high-income countries. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;116:518–29. · DOI · Paper page
  94. Gomersall T, Madill A, Summers LK. A metasynthesis of the self management of type 2 diabetes. Qual Health Res. 2011;21:853–71. · DOI
  95. Steen M, Downe S, Bamford N, Edozien L. Not-patient and not-visitor: a metasynthesis fathers’ encounters with pregnancy, birth and maternity care. Midwifery. 2012;28:422–31. · DOI · Paper page
  96. Kable AK, Pich J, Maslin-Prothero SE. A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32:878–86. · DOI · Paper page
  97. France EF, Ring N, Noyes J, Maxwell M, Jepson R, Duncan E, et al. Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:103. · DOI
  98. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Collins KMT. A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qual Rep. 2007;12:281–316.
  99. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1996.
  100. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1990.
  101. Hood WW, Wilson CS. The scatter of documents over databases in different subject domains: how many databases are needed? JASIST. 2001;52:1242–54. · DOI
  102. Littell JH, Corcoran J, Pillai V. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. · DOI · Paper page
  103. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from MEDLINE: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005;330(7482):68. · DOI · Paper page
  104. Niederstadt C, Droste S. Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:450. · DOI
  105. Clapton J. Bibliographic databases for social care searching. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence; 2010.
  106. Matthews EJ, Edwards AG, Barker J, Bloor M, Covey J, Hood K, et al. Efficient literature searching in diffuse topics: lessons from a systematic review of research on communicating risk to patients in primary care. Health Libr Rev. 1999;16(2):112–20. · DOI
  107. McNally R, Alborz A. Developing methods for systematic reviewing in health services delivery and organisation: an example from a review of access to health care for people with learning disabilities. Part 1. Identifying the literature. Health Info Libr J. 2004;21(3):182–92. · DOI
  108. Taylor BJ, Dempster M, Donnelly M. Hidden gems: systematically searching electronic databases for research publications for social work and social care. Br J Soc Work. 2003;33(4):423–39. · DOI
  109. Taylor B, Wylie E, Dempster M, Donnelly M. Systematically retrieving research: a case study evaluating seven databases. Res Soc Work Pract. 2007;17:697–706. · DOI
  110. Ananadiou S, Procter R, Rea B, Sasaki Y, Thomas J. Supporting systematic reviews using text mining. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2009;27:509–23. · DOI
  111. Armstrong R, Waters E, Jackson N, Oliver S, Popay J, Shepherd J, et al. Guidelines for systematic reviews of health promotion and public health interventions. Version 2. Australia: Melbourne University; 2007.
  112. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Wieland LS, Coles B, Weightman AL. Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future. Sys Rev. 2013;2:78. · DOI

Cited by

See all 569

Metadata

Authors
Booth, A.
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-05-04
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
74-74
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
OpenAlex
W2346502627
Cited by
569
References
28
FWCI
9.78
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: Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
The paper
Booth, A. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-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.