Thread by @JBIEBHC

Methodologists generally agree that qualitative research included in systematic reviews should undergo quality assessment.

Indeed, critical appraisal is an essential feature of the JBI meta-aggregative approach to qualitative synthesis.

Low-quality studies should be excluded from evidence synthesis, as lack of rigor could impact the validity of study findings.

However, many reviewers include all studies in their reviews, regardless of study quality.

Some reviewers justify their decision to include all studies in their systematic reviews for various reasons including:

1. Participant voices are represented and valuable to the review objectives

2. Both high-quality and low-quality studies can provide insights for a richer understanding of the phenomenon of interest

3. There is a limited number of studies available on the phenomenon of interest

4. Limitations of reporting in publications may impact the information available for quality assessment

5. Researchers' cultural and theoretical perspectives, as well as their reflexivity, are often not reported in research publications.

Critical appraisal of qualitative research is a complex task, and deciding which studies to include in qualitative syntheses based on their quality is difficult.

ConQual scores, which evaluate the dependability of primary studies and the credibility of their findings, provide transparency about the impact of including lower-quality studies on the confidence in the synthesised findings.

These scores can give reviewers a level of comfort in their decisions about including studies with quality shortcomings.

However, ConQual scores may lead to synthesised findings presented with low confidence, which limits their potential to influence practice.

Regardless, more methodological work is needed to establish whether there are critical appraisal criteria deemed essential to study rigour.

While acknowledging that decisions may be context-specific to a review, additional guidance on essential criteria can help reviewers make decisions about study inclusion on the basis of quality assessments.

This would promote greater consistency in these judgments across reviews.

Read more in editorial, 'Reflections on critical appraisal of research for qualitative evidence synthesis,' in the latest issue of JBI Evidence Synthesis.

journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fullte…

#JBIEBHC