This systematic review examines the characteristics of qualitative descriptive (QD) studies published in 2014, focusing on nursing-related phenomena. The review identified 55 articles that met the inclusion criteria and analyzed their methods and findings. Key findings include: 1. **Characteristics Consistent with QD**: Most articles included characteristics consistent with limited available QD definitions and descriptions. 2. **Flexibility in Methods**: Flexibility or variability in methods was common and desirable for obtaining rich data and achieving a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. 3. **Justification for QD Approach**: Limited justification for why a QD approach was chosen and why it was appropriate for the study was found, highlighting a need for increased attention to this aspect. The review also discusses the features of QD studies, such as the use of naturalistic perspectives, flexibility in theoretical commitment, data collection through interviews, and content analysis for data analysis. The study objectives often focused on participants' experiences, facilitators, challenges, and perceptions. The review found that while most articles described recruitment strategies and data collection methods, justification for study settings and data collection methods was less common. Ethical standards were generally reported, and most articles included detailed descriptions of data analysis and findings. The review concludes with recommendations for researchers to provide detailed information about their QD studies, including methodological choices and justifications, to enhance transparency and credibility. The findings highlight the need for clearer guidelines and more detailed reporting in QD studies to facilitate understanding and evaluation by readers.This systematic review examines the characteristics of qualitative descriptive (QD) studies published in 2014, focusing on nursing-related phenomena. The review identified 55 articles that met the inclusion criteria and analyzed their methods and findings. Key findings include: 1. **Characteristics Consistent with QD**: Most articles included characteristics consistent with limited available QD definitions and descriptions. 2. **Flexibility in Methods**: Flexibility or variability in methods was common and desirable for obtaining rich data and achieving a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. 3. **Justification for QD Approach**: Limited justification for why a QD approach was chosen and why it was appropriate for the study was found, highlighting a need for increased attention to this aspect. The review also discusses the features of QD studies, such as the use of naturalistic perspectives, flexibility in theoretical commitment, data collection through interviews, and content analysis for data analysis. The study objectives often focused on participants' experiences, facilitators, challenges, and perceptions. The review found that while most articles described recruitment strategies and data collection methods, justification for study settings and data collection methods was less common. Ethical standards were generally reported, and most articles included detailed descriptions of data analysis and findings. The review concludes with recommendations for researchers to provide detailed information about their QD studies, including methodological choices and justifications, to enhance transparency and credibility. The findings highlight the need for clearer guidelines and more detailed reporting in QD studies to facilitate understanding and evaluation by readers.