PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 1, 2018SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología278 citationsOpen Access

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data

CGClaire GlentonBCBenedicte CarlsenSLSimon Lewin

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of adequacy in the context of the CERQual approach. We approach assessments of data adequacy in terms of the richness and quantity of the data supporting each review finding, but do not offer fixed rules regarding what constitutes sufficiently rich data or an adequate quantity of data. Instead, we recommend that this assessment is made in relation to the nature of the finding. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Glenton et al. (2018) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69de7e4f4838c5c0bab0bea1https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 4: how to assess coherence2018 · 289 citations
  2. 2Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data2018 · 276 citations
  3. 3How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research2018 · 671 citations
  4. 4What matters to women: a systematic scoping review to identify the processes and outcomes of antenatal care provision that are important to healthy pregnant women2015 · 250 citations
  5. 5GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision2011 · 2,742 citations