Introduction: Scientific rigor is widely regarded as being exemplified by the Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT); indeed the RCT is termed the 'gold standard' of research within Cochrane literature. Matters are not so clear cut within the realm of qualitative research however (the term qualitative research being commonly used to denote 'any research which is not quasi experimental or experimental, through which numerical data are obtained' [Burns, 1989]). The intention of this paper is to encourage debate, and make some proposals, about what might reliably constitute scientific rigor in qualitative research. The paper contributes to a growing interest within and beyond Cochrane circles about qualitative research and the kind of evidence it can offer health care practitioners.

Methods: A report of literature across several disciplines provides the substantive content of the paper. As well, the topic is related to a research project currently being undertaken by the authors: a study of midwives' attitudes towards research before and after exposure to the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database within their clinical setting.

Results: The study of qualitative research in terms of its scientific defensibility is a relatively new field. There are multiple (potentially conflicting) frameworks available to guide the degree of importance one should place upon a single piece of qualitative research, and few guides to meta analyses. Available reviews are unreliable in the sense they are not systematic; for example, they do not follow any particular format. A proposal is put forward as to how experts in a particular discipline or field of practice can take account of, and make judgements about, this literature and reach some consensus about how they wish to systematically review qualitative research in their speciality, and further, how they might set about developing a mechanism for meta analyses of findings.