Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

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

Author: Andrew Booth

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
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.CrossRef
2.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.
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.PubMed
6.
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.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. 2009. York: University of York.
9.
Booth A, Carroll C. Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Info Libr J. 2015;32(3):220–35.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Barroso J, Gollop C, Sandelowski M, Meynell J, Pearce P, Collins L. The challenge of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25:153–78.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Ramer SL. Site-ation pearl growing: methods and librarianship history and theory. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(3):397–400.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Booth A. "Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(4):421–9.e205.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A, Beyond PICO. The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22:1435–43.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Flemming K, Briggs M. Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: evaluation of three strategies. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57(1):95–100.PubMedCrossRef
17.
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.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Grayson L, Gomersall A. A difficult business: finding the evidence for social science reviews. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. Working paper 2003. London: Queen Mary, University of London.
19.
McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving qualitative studies in PsycINFO. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29:440–54.PubMedCrossRef
20.
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.PubMedCrossRef
21.
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.
22.
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.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Walters LA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving clinically relevant qualitative studies in EMBASE. Qual Health Res. 2006;16:162–8.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Wilczynski NL, Marks S, Haynes RB. Search strategies for identifying qualitative studies in CINAHL. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(5):705–10.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Wong SSL, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative. Medinfo. 2004;107:311.
26.
27.
Mehdyzadeh H. Searching for the evidence: an introduction to social science information retrieval. London: Department for Culture Media and Sport; 2004.
28.
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.
29.
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.PubMedCrossRef
30.
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.CrossRef
31.
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.CrossRef
32.
33.
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.PubMedCrossRef
34.
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.
35.
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.
36.
Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Research Methodol. 2009;9(1):59.CrossRef
37.
38.
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.
39.
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.CrossRef
40.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
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.PubMedCrossRef
42.
France EF, Ring N, Thomas R, Noyes J, Maxwell M, Jepson R. A methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:119.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, Roberts K. Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000;7:125–33.CrossRef
44.
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.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Booth, A, Papaioannou, D, Sutton, A J. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: Sage publications Ltd; 2011.
48.
Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2012.
49.
Manning N. Conclusion. In: Hannes K, Lockwood C, editors. Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
50.
Jensen LA, Allen MN. Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qual Health Res. 1996;6(4):553–60.CrossRef
51.
Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C. Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20:365–71.PubMedCrossRef
52.
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.
53.
Sherwood G. Meta-synthesis: merging qualitative studies to develop nursing knowledge. Int J Human Caring. 1999;3(1):37–42.
54.
55.
Paterson BL, Thorne S, Canam C, Jillings C. Meta-study of qualitative health research: a practical guide to meta-analysis and metasynthesis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.
56.
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.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Doyle LH. Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qual Res. 2003;3(3):321–44.CrossRef
58.
59.
Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, Jones D, Sutton A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. London: Health Development Agency; 2004.
60.
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.
61.
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist synthesis: an introduction. Manchester: ESRC Research Methods Programme Working Paper Series; 2004.
62.
Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331:1064–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50:204–11.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6(1):35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
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.
67.
Bondas T, Hall EOC. Challenges in approaching meta-synthesis research. Qual Health Res. 2007;17:113–21.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Briggs M, Flemming K. Living with leg ulceration: a synthesis of qualitative research. J Adv Nurs. 2007;59(4):319–28.PubMedCrossRef
69.
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.CrossRef
70.
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.CrossRef
71.
Downe S. Metasynthesis: a guide to knitting smoke. Evid Based Midwifery. 2008;6:4–8.
72.
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.
73.
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.CrossRef
74.
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.
75.
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.PubMedCrossRef
76.
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.
77.
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.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Suri H. Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qual Res J. 2011;11:63–75.CrossRef
79.
Suri H. Towards methodologically inclusive research syntheses: expanding possibilities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2013.
80.
81.
Russell CK, Bunting SM, Gregory DM. Protective care-receiving: the active role of care recipients. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25:532–40.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Kastner M, Straus SE, McKibbon KA, Goldsmith CH. The capture-mark-recapture technique can be used as a stopping rule when searching in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:149–57.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Barbour RS, Barbour M. Evaluating and synthesising qualitative research: the need to develop a distinctive approach. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9:179–86.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007;7:375–422.CrossRef
85.
Coad J, Hardicre J, Devitt P. Searching for and using grey literature. Nurs Times. 2007;102:35–6.
86.
Saini M, Shlonsky A. Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
87.
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.CrossRef
88.
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):181.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
89.
90.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
91.
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​.
92.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
93.
Stansfield C, Brunton G, Rees R. Search wide, dig deep: literature searching for qualitative research. An analysis of the publication formats and information sources used for four systematic reviews in public health. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:142–51.PubMedCrossRef
94.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
95.
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.PubMedCrossRef
96.
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.PubMedCrossRef
97.
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.
98.
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.
99.
Davies KS. Formulating the evidence based practice question: a review of the frameworks. Evid Based Libr Info Pract. 2011;6(2):75–80.CrossRef
100.
101.
Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:579.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
102.
Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. AJN: Am J Nurs. 2014;114:53–6.PubMedCrossRef
103.
Mackay G. Is there a need to differentiate between qualitative and quantitative searching strategies for literature reviewing? Qual Soc Work. 2007;6:231–41.CrossRef
104.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
105.
Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3496.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
106.
Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters—a review. Health Info Libr J. 2004;21:148–63.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Bates MJ. The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Rev. 1989;13:407–24.CrossRef
108.
Downe S, Simpson L, Trafford K. Expert intrapartum maternity care: a metasynthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57:127–40.PubMedCrossRef
109.
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.PubMedCrossRef
110.
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.
111.
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.PubMedCrossRef
112.
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.CrossRef
113.
Hawker S, Payne S, Kerr C, Hardey M, Powell J. Appraising the evidence: reviewing disparate data systematically. Qual Health Res. 2002;12:1284–99.PubMedCrossRef
114.
Malpass A, Carel H, Ridd M, Shaw A, Kessler D, Sharp D, et al. Transforming the perceptual situation: a meta-ethnography of qualitative work reporting patients’ experiences of mindfulness-based approaches. Mindfulness. 2012;3:60–75.CrossRef
115.
Gomersall T, Madill A, Summers LK. A metasynthesis of the self management of type 2 diabetes. Qual Health Res. 2011;21:853–71.PubMedCrossRef
116.
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.CrossRef
117.
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.PubMedCrossRef
118.
119.
120.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
121.
Onwuegbuzie AJ, Collins KMT. A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qual Rep. 2007;12:281–316.
122.
Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1996.
123.
Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1990.
124.
Baker SE, Edwards R: How many qualitative interviews is enough? National Centre for Research Methods review paper: expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. 2012. http://​eprints.​ncrm.​ac.​uk/​2273/​ (last accessed 12th September 2015).
125.
Hood WW, Wilson CS. The scatter of documents over databases in different subject domains: how many databases are needed? JASIST. 2001;52:1242–54.CrossRef
126.
Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–76.PubMed
127.
Littell JH, Corcoran J, Pillai V. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.CrossRef
128.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6, e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
129.
Higgins JPT, Green S, (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. Available from: http://​handbook.​cochrane.​org/​. Accessed on 29 Apr 2016.
130.
Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, et al. Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ: Br Med J. 2004;328:1010.CrossRef
131.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
132.
Cooper H. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach (4th ed., Vol. 2). London: Sage; 2010.
133.
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.PubMedCrossRef
134.
Clapton J. Bibliographic databases for social care searching. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence; 2010.
135.
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.PubMedCrossRef
136.
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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
137.
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.CrossRef
138.
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.CrossRef
139.
Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–3.PubMed
140.
Ananadiou S, Procter R, Rea B, Sasaki Y, Thomas J. Supporting systematic reviews using text mining. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2009;27:509–23.CrossRef
141.
Thomas J, McNaught J, Ananadiou S. Applications of text mining within systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:1–14.PubMedCrossRef
142.
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.
143.
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.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review
Author
Andrew Booth
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Systematic Reviews 1/2016 Go to the issue

Protocol

Cinacalcet versus standard treatment for chronic kidney disease: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Commentary

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses

Protocol

Drug-based pain management in people with dementia after hip or pelvic fractures: a systematic review protocol

Methodology

Using qualitative comparative analysis in a systematic review of a complex intervention

Protocol

Local anesthetic injections with or without steroid for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Research

A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension