PDF(Pubmed)
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
摘要：
目的：了解（1）有哪些指导来评估定性研究的方法学质量；（2）有哪些方法可以对定性研究的证据水平进行分级，以告知欧洲风湿病学协会联盟（EULAR）的建议。
方法：在包括PubMed/Medline在内的多个数据库中进行了系统的文献综述，EMBASE,WebofScience,COCHRANE和PsycINFO,从成立到2020年10月23日。符合条件的研究包括英文的主要文章和指南文件，描述：(1)开发；(2)已验证工具的应用(例如，清单）；（3）关于评估定性研究的方法学质量的指导和（4）关于定性证据分级水平的指导。进行了叙述性综合，以确定纳入研究之间的关键相似性。
结果：在检索到的9073条记录中，51进行了完整的手稿审查，有15人入选。六篇文章描述了评估定性研究质量的方法工具。这些工具评估了研究设计，招募,道德严谨性,数据收集和分析。七篇文章描述了一种方法，重点关注四个关键组成部分，以确定对定性研究的系统评价结果有多大的信心。两篇文章侧重于基于定性证据的临床建议的分级水平；一篇描述了定性证据层次结构，另一个是研究金字塔。
结论：在使用工具方面缺乏共识，适用于评估定性研究的方法学质量和定性证据分级的检查表和方法，以指导临床实践。预计这项工作将有助于在EULAR级别制定建议的过程中纳入定性证据。
方法：在包括PubMed/Medline在内的多个数据库中进行了系统的文献综述，EMBASE,WebofScience,COCHRANE和PsycINFO,从成立到2020年10月23日。符合条件的研究包括英文的主要文章和指南文件，描述：(1)开发；(2)已验证工具的应用(例如，清单）；（3）关于评估定性研究的方法学质量的指导和（4）关于定性证据分级水平的指导。进行了叙述性综合，以确定纳入研究之间的关键相似性。
结果：在检索到的9073条记录中，51进行了完整的手稿审查，有15人入选。六篇文章描述了评估定性研究质量的方法工具。这些工具评估了研究设计，招募,道德严谨性,数据收集和分析。七篇文章描述了一种方法，重点关注四个关键组成部分，以确定对定性研究的系统评价结果有多大的信心。两篇文章侧重于基于定性证据的临床建议的分级水平；一篇描述了定性证据层次结构，另一个是研究金字塔。
结论：在使用工具方面缺乏共识，适用于评估定性研究的方法学质量和定性证据分级的检查表和方法，以指导临床实践。预计这项工作将有助于在EULAR级别制定建议的过程中纳入定性证据。
