This systematic review examines the characteristics of qualitative descriptive (QD) studies published in 2014. The study analyzed 55 articles self-identified as QD, focusing on research objectives, design justification, theoretical frameworks, sampling, data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings. Three primary findings were identified: most QD articles aligned with limited QD definitions, flexibility in methods was common, and justification for choosing QD was often lacking. Researchers generally used naturalistic perspectives, less theoretical approaches, and purposeful sampling. Data collection involved interviews and focus groups, while analysis often used content analysis or thematic analysis. Findings were presented as descriptive summaries. The review highlights the need for more detailed descriptions of QD methods to ensure clarity and effectiveness. QD studies often combined techniques from other qualitative traditions to enhance data richness. The review also notes that QD studies lack clear boundaries and that researchers should justify their choice of QD. The study emphasizes the importance of transparency in research methods and findings to enhance study rigor. Limitations include the exclusion of studies not explicitly labeled as QD and reliance on published data. The review concludes that QD is a flexible approach suitable for exploring nursing-related phenomena, and researchers should provide detailed descriptions of their methods to improve clarity and effectiveness.This systematic review examines the characteristics of qualitative descriptive (QD) studies published in 2014. The study analyzed 55 articles self-identified as QD, focusing on research objectives, design justification, theoretical frameworks, sampling, data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings. Three primary findings were identified: most QD articles aligned with limited QD definitions, flexibility in methods was common, and justification for choosing QD was often lacking. Researchers generally used naturalistic perspectives, less theoretical approaches, and purposeful sampling. Data collection involved interviews and focus groups, while analysis often used content analysis or thematic analysis. Findings were presented as descriptive summaries. The review highlights the need for more detailed descriptions of QD methods to ensure clarity and effectiveness. QD studies often combined techniques from other qualitative traditions to enhance data richness. The review also notes that QD studies lack clear boundaries and that researchers should justify their choice of QD. The study emphasizes the importance of transparency in research methods and findings to enhance study rigor. Limitations include the exclusion of studies not explicitly labeled as QD and reliance on published data. The review concludes that QD is a flexible approach suitable for exploring nursing-related phenomena, and researchers should provide detailed descriptions of their methods to improve clarity and effectiveness.