Synthesis of guidance available for assessing methodological quality and grading of evidence from qualitative research to inform clinical recommendations: a systematic literature review

Sekhon, Mandeep, De Thurah, Annette, Fragoulis, George E., Schoones, Jan, Stamm, Tanja A., Vliet Vlieland, Theodora P.M., Esbensen, Bente Appel, Lempp, Heidi, Bearne, Lindsay, Kouloumas, Marios, Pchelnikova, Polina, Swinnen, Thijs Willem, Blunt, Christopher, Ferreira, Ricardo J.O., Carmona, Loreto and Nikiphorou, Elena (2024) Synthesis of guidance available for assessing methodological quality and grading of evidence from qualitative research to inform clinical recommendations: a systematic literature review. RMD Open, 10 (2). ISSN 2056-5933

Text (Blunt_synthesis-of-guidance-available--published) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (815kB)

• Scopus publication
• Author

Abstract

Objective To understand (1) what guidance exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research; (2) what methods exist to grade levels of evidence from qualitative research to inform recommendations within European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Methods A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE and PsycINFO, from inception to 23 October 2020. Eligible studies included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: (1) development; (2) application of validated tools (eg, checklists); (3) guidance on assessing methodological quality of qualitative research and (4) guidance on grading levels of qualitative evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key similarities between included studies. Results Of 9073 records retrieved, 51 went through to full-manuscript review, with 15 selected for inclusion. Six articles described methodological tools to assess the quality of qualitative research. The tools evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and analysis. Seven articles described one approach, focusing on four key components to determine how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research. Two articles focused on grading levels of clinical recommendations based on qualitative evidence; one described a qualitative evidence hierarchy, and another a research pyramid. Conclusion There is a lack of consensus on the use of tools, checklists and approaches suitable for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research and the grading of qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. This work is expected to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative evidence in the process of developing recommendations at EULAR level.

Item Type:	Article
Official URL:	https://rmdopen.bmj.com/
Additional Information:	© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s))
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Date Deposited:	02 Jul 2024 10:09
Last Modified:	12 Dec 2024 04:21
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/124081

Actions (login required)

View Item