Evaluating qualitative literature for validity & reliability has no gold standard. However, this is essential for a speciality in which the core evidence base extends necessarily far beyond Cochrane RCTs. A review on spiritual care at the end of life, in which methodological rigour is very variable, presented us with this problem. We examined several validated methods. 8 frameworks yielded appraisal criteria with considerable overlap encompassing general issues: method selection, sampling & analytical rigour. However, we found the BSA Medical Sociology Group’s method to be most appropriate for 3 reasons: 1) it was multidisciplinary; 2) it examined the relationship of researchers to the subject matter & 3) it questioned their clarity about their position in relation to that subject matter. In the matter of spiritual care, 2&3 are essential. We scored the extent to which these criteria were met (not, partial & complete) to give a potential of 18. Our study encompassed UK papers from 1990 - 2002 yielding some quantitative data The extraction criteria were: study aim, method & sample; declared definitions of spirituality/care; the authors’ premisses; results & recommendations; study limitations; emergent construct/synthesis & whether ethical approval was sought. The analysis examined these relevant domains: resonant themes, common findings & experiences; limits of the approach, systematic method & statistics (where relevant); author-subject relationship & world view. 17 papers were analysed. 10 scored 15 or over except a widely quoted paper, which scored only 7. We conclude generally that the literature stood up to this level of scrutiny, but specifically, because spirituality & belief are amorphous & inherently evaluative, we are left with 2 issues: 1) all but 2 authors failed to indicate their belief(s) & analytical bias. These must be criteria for peer review 2) narrative will only be amenable to similar evaluation if authors’ premisses & bias’ are declared.