Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias
Published 2018 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias
Authors
Keywords
Qualitative research, Qualitative evidence synthesis, Systematic review methodology, Research design, Methodology, Confidence, Evidence-based practice, Dissemination bias, Publication bias, GRADE
Journal
Implementation Science
Volume 13, Issue S1, Pages -
Publisher
Springer Nature
Online
2018-01-25
DOI
10.1186/s13012-017-0694-5
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series
- (2018) Simon Lewin et al. Implementation Science
- Further exploration of dissemination bias in qualitative research required to facilitate assessment within qualitative evidence syntheses
- (2017) Ingrid Toews et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus
- (2016) Dirk Bassler et al. BMJ Open
- Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey
- (2016) Ingrid Toews et al. PLoS One
- Charting the evolution of approaches employed by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) to address inequities in access to immunization: a systematic qualitative review of GAVI policies, strategies and resource allocation mechanisms through an equity lens (1999–2014)
- (2015) Gian Gandhi BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
- Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review
- (2015) Roberta W. Scherer et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Using Qualitative Evidence in Decision Making for Health and Social Interventions: An Approach to Assess Confidence in Findings from Qualitative Evidence Syntheses (GRADE-CERQual)
- (2015) Simon Lewin et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination of young women in high-income countries: a qualitative systematic review and evidence synthesis
- (2014) Harriet Batista Ferrer et al. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
- Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
- (2014) F Song et al. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
- Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research
- (2014) R Campbell et al. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
- Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste
- (2014) Malcolm R Macleod et al. LANCET
- Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
- (2014) Christine Schmucker et al. PLoS One
- Evidence for the Selective Reporting of Analyses and Discrepancies in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies of Clinical Trials
- (2014) Kerry Dwan et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Patients' Views on the Impact of Stroke on Their Roles and Self: A Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies
- (2013) Ton Satink et al. ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
- Lay perspectives of successful ageing: a systematic review and meta-ethnography
- (2013) Theodore D Cosco et al. BMJ Open
- GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias
- (2011) Gordon H. Guyatt et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt
- (2008) Salla Atkins et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Publication bias in qualitative research: what becomes of qualitative research presented at conferences?
- (2008) M Petticrew et al. JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
- Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
- (2008) Kerry Dwan et al. PLoS One
Find Funding. Review Successful Grants.
Explore over 25,000 new funding opportunities and over 6,000,000 successful grants.
ExploreDiscover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Join a conversation