Evidence mapPaperPMID 40929109Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

A protocol to develop a Quality Assessment Tool for Realist Synthesis (QUATRES).

Ferdinand C Mukumbang, Brynne Gilmore, Rebecca Hunter, Sara Dada, Sonia Dalkin, Andrew Booth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ferdinand C MukumbangDepartment of Global Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1441-2172
Brynne GilmoreUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS Centre), Dublin, Ireland.
Rebecca HunterDepartment of Public Health and Sport Sciences Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, England.
Sara DadaUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS Centre), Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3910-1856
Sonia DalkinFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Andrew BoothSheffield Centre of Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A realist synthesis or review is a theory-driven, realist-informed interpretive approach to synthesizing secondary data, informing evidence-based practice, and explaining social phenomena. Realist syntheses use flexible and iterative methods to achieve this goal, including drawing on stakeholders' knowledge. Thus, realist syntheses require robust planning to be conducted and reported. Similarly, owing to their complex and iterative nature, they also need assessment guidelines so that knowledge practitioners and policymakers can appraise the value of the evidence they produce. While some current tools guide the conduct and reporting of realist syntheses, little comprehensive guidance exists on effectively assessing the quality of realist syntheses. To this end, we aim to develop a Quality Assessment Tool for Realist Synthesis (QUATRES) to encourage the transparent reporting of the review methods, the explicit assessment of the quality of reviews and the reliability of their findings. To achieve this, we will employ a multi-method study design consisting of three work packages: an audit of peer-reviewed articles to identify strengths and weaknesses in a sample of papers reporting realist syntheses, a methodological review of realist synthesis methodology guidance to identify quality markers, and a Delphi consensus to refine and validate quality markers.

Indexed as

Research DesignReview Literature as TopicConsensusDelphi TechniqueGuidelines as TopicHumansPeer Review, ResearchReproducibility of ResultsResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID40929109
PMCPMC12422416

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.