↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 1,694)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
229 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
166 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
478 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Booth

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 229 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 471 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 95 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 14%
Researcher 58 12%
Librarian 37 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 6%
Other 117 24%
Unknown 77 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 21%
Social Sciences 89 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 76 16%
Psychology 31 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 20 4%
Other 72 15%
Unknown 92 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 154. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#164,643
of 18,914,672 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 1,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,147
of 272,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,914,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.