Cargando…

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias

BACKGROUND: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evid...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Booth, Andrew, Lewin, Simon, Glenton, Claire, Munthe-Kaas, Heather, Toews, Ingrid, Noyes, Jane, Rashidian, Arash, Berg, Rigmor C., Nyakang’o, Brenda, Meerpohl, Joerg J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5791043/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29384076
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0694-5
_version_ 1783296558348894208
author Booth, Andrew
Lewin, Simon
Glenton, Claire
Munthe-Kaas, Heather
Toews, Ingrid
Noyes, Jane
Rashidian, Arash
Berg, Rigmor C.
Nyakang’o, Brenda
Meerpohl, Joerg J.
author_facet Booth, Andrew
Lewin, Simon
Glenton, Claire
Munthe-Kaas, Heather
Toews, Ingrid
Noyes, Jane
Rashidian, Arash
Berg, Rigmor C.
Nyakang’o, Brenda
Meerpohl, Joerg J.
author_sort Booth, Andrew
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on a probable fifth component, dissemination bias. Given its exploratory nature, we are not yet able to provide guidance on applying this potential component of the CERQual approach. Instead, we focus on how dissemination bias might be conceptualised in the context of qualitative research and the potential impact dissemination bias might have on an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding. We also set out a proposed research agenda in this area. METHODS: We developed this paper by gathering feedback from relevant research communities, searching MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify and characterise the existing literature discussing or assessing dissemination bias in qualitative research and its wider implications, developing consensus through project group meetings, and conducting an online survey of the extent, awareness and perceptions of dissemination bias in qualitative research. RESULTS: We have defined dissemination bias in qualitative research as a systematic distortion of the phenomenon of interest due to selective dissemination of studies or individual study findings. Dissemination bias is important for qualitative evidence syntheses as the selective dissemination of qualitative studies and/or study findings may distort our understanding of the phenomena that these syntheses aim to explore and thereby undermine our confidence in these findings. Dissemination bias has been extensively examined in the context of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of such studies. The effects of potential dissemination bias are formally considered, as publication bias, within the GRADE approach. However, the issue has received almost no attention in the context of qualitative research. Because of very limited understanding of dissemination bias and its potential impact on review findings in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses, this component is currently not included in the GRADE-CERQual approach. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to establish the extent and impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research and the extent to which dissemination bias needs to be taken into account when we assess how much confidence we have in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0694-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5791043
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57910432018-02-08 Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias Booth, Andrew Lewin, Simon Glenton, Claire Munthe-Kaas, Heather Toews, Ingrid Noyes, Jane Rashidian, Arash Berg, Rigmor C. Nyakang’o, Brenda Meerpohl, Joerg J. Implement Sci Method BACKGROUND: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on a probable fifth component, dissemination bias. Given its exploratory nature, we are not yet able to provide guidance on applying this potential component of the CERQual approach. Instead, we focus on how dissemination bias might be conceptualised in the context of qualitative research and the potential impact dissemination bias might have on an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding. We also set out a proposed research agenda in this area. METHODS: We developed this paper by gathering feedback from relevant research communities, searching MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify and characterise the existing literature discussing or assessing dissemination bias in qualitative research and its wider implications, developing consensus through project group meetings, and conducting an online survey of the extent, awareness and perceptions of dissemination bias in qualitative research. RESULTS: We have defined dissemination bias in qualitative research as a systematic distortion of the phenomenon of interest due to selective dissemination of studies or individual study findings. Dissemination bias is important for qualitative evidence syntheses as the selective dissemination of qualitative studies and/or study findings may distort our understanding of the phenomena that these syntheses aim to explore and thereby undermine our confidence in these findings. Dissemination bias has been extensively examined in the context of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of such studies. The effects of potential dissemination bias are formally considered, as publication bias, within the GRADE approach. However, the issue has received almost no attention in the context of qualitative research. Because of very limited understanding of dissemination bias and its potential impact on review findings in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses, this component is currently not included in the GRADE-CERQual approach. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to establish the extent and impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research and the extent to which dissemination bias needs to be taken into account when we assess how much confidence we have in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0694-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5791043/ /pubmed/29384076 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0694-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Method
Booth, Andrew
Lewin, Simon
Glenton, Claire
Munthe-Kaas, Heather
Toews, Ingrid
Noyes, Jane
Rashidian, Arash
Berg, Rigmor C.
Nyakang’o, Brenda
Meerpohl, Joerg J.
Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias
title Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias
title_full Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias
title_fullStr Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias
title_full_unstemmed Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias
title_short Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias
title_sort applying grade-cerqual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias
topic Method
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5791043/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29384076
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0694-5
work_keys_str_mv AT boothandrew applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT lewinsimon applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT glentonclaire applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT munthekaasheather applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT toewsingrid applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT noyesjane applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT rashidianarash applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT bergrigmorc applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT nyakangobrenda applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT meerpohljoergj applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias
AT applyinggradecerqualtoqualitativeevidencesynthesisfindingspaper7understandingthepotentialimpactsofdisseminationbias