Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically

By S. Hawker, Sheila Payne, C. Kerr, M. Hardey, J. Powell. Qualitative Health Research, 2002

1,150 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Future of Empirical Methods in Software Engineering Research (2007, background): “Hence, there is a danger that what is being assessed is the quality of reporting, rather than the quality of research [59].”
Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review (2013, methodology): “The quality of individual studies was assessed using two different standardized scales for quantitative and qualitative research ([19,20], details in Additional file 3).”
Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review (2018, methodology): “Therefore, despite our best attempts, the specificity of our search criteria was modest, a problem familiar to systematic reviews in health services research, which typically crosses many disciplinary boundaries [38].”
First-Generation College Students as Academic Learners: A Systematic Review (2020, background): “Since as a field we do not have a universal scoring method for heterogeneous data outside of the positivist paradigm (Hawker et al., 2002), we agreed that review by peers in the field offered one way to evaluate quality.”