Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the cochrane library

Martina Giltenane, Aoife O'Mahony, Mayara S. Bianchim, Andrew Booth, Angela Harden, Catherine Houghton, Emma F. France, Heather Ames, Kate Flemming, Katy Sutcliffe, Ruth Garside, Tomas Pantoja, Jane Noyes
{"title":"Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the cochrane library","authors":"Martina Giltenane,&nbsp;Aoife O'Mahony,&nbsp;Mayara S. Bianchim,&nbsp;Andrew Booth,&nbsp;Angela Harden,&nbsp;Catherine Houghton,&nbsp;Emma F. France,&nbsp;Heather Ames,&nbsp;Kate Flemming,&nbsp;Katy Sutcliffe,&nbsp;Ruth Garside,&nbsp;Tomas Pantoja,&nbsp;Jane Noyes","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Over ten years since the first qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was published in the Cochrane Library, QES and mixed-methods reviews (MMR) with a qualitative component have become increasingly common and influential in healthcare research and policy development. The quality of such reviews and the completeness with which they are reported is therefore of paramount importance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This review aimed to assess the reporting quality of published QESs and MMRs with a qualitative component in the Cochrane Library.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>All published QESs and MMRs were identified from the Cochrane Library. A bespoke framework developed by key international experts based on the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) and meta-ethnography reporting guidance (eMERGe) was used to code the quality of reporting of QESs and MMRs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-one reviews were identified, including 11 MMRs. The reporting quality of the QESs and MMRs published by Cochrane varied considerably. Based on the criteria within our framework, just over a quarter (8, 26%) were considered to meet satisfactory reporting standards, 10 (32%) could have provided clearer or more detailed descriptions in their reporting, just over a quarter (8, 26%) provided poor quality or insufficient descriptions and five (16%) omitted descriptions relevant to our framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This assessment offers important insights into the reporting practices prevalent in these review types. Methodology and reporting have changed considerably over time. Earlier QES have not necessarily omitted important reporting components, but rather our understanding of what should be completed and reported has grown considerably. The variability in reporting quality within QESs and MMRs underscores the need to develop Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) specifically for QES.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"3 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70023","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.70023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Over ten years since the first qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was published in the Cochrane Library, QES and mixed-methods reviews (MMR) with a qualitative component have become increasingly common and influential in healthcare research and policy development. The quality of such reviews and the completeness with which they are reported is therefore of paramount importance.

Aim

This review aimed to assess the reporting quality of published QESs and MMRs with a qualitative component in the Cochrane Library.

Methods

All published QESs and MMRs were identified from the Cochrane Library. A bespoke framework developed by key international experts based on the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) and meta-ethnography reporting guidance (eMERGe) was used to code the quality of reporting of QESs and MMRs.

Results

Thirty-one reviews were identified, including 11 MMRs. The reporting quality of the QESs and MMRs published by Cochrane varied considerably. Based on the criteria within our framework, just over a quarter (8, 26%) were considered to meet satisfactory reporting standards, 10 (32%) could have provided clearer or more detailed descriptions in their reporting, just over a quarter (8, 26%) provided poor quality or insufficient descriptions and five (16%) omitted descriptions relevant to our framework.

Conclusion

This assessment offers important insights into the reporting practices prevalent in these review types. Methodology and reporting have changed considerably over time. Earlier QES have not necessarily omitted important reporting components, but rather our understanding of what should be completed and reported has grown considerably. The variability in reporting quality within QESs and MMRs underscores the need to develop Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) specifically for QES.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估cochrane图书馆发表的定性证据综合报告的质量
自从第一个定性证据合成(QES)在Cochrane图书馆发表以来,十多年来,QES和带有定性成分的混合方法综述(MMR)在医疗保健研究和政策制定中变得越来越普遍和有影响力。因此,这些审查的质量和报告的完整性是至关重要的。目的:本综述旨在评估Cochrane图书馆中已发表的QESs和mmr的报告质量。方法从Cochrane图书馆检索已发表的QESs和mmr。主要国际专家根据有效实践和护理组织(EPOC)、提高定性研究综合报告的透明度(ENTREQ)和元人种学报告指南(eMERGe)开发了一个定制框架,用于编码QESs和mmr报告的质量。结果共纳入31篇综述,其中mmr 11篇。Cochrane发表的QESs和MMRs的报告质量差异很大。基于我们框架内的标准,仅仅超过四分之一(8.26%)被认为符合令人满意的报告标准,10个(32%)可以在他们的报告中提供更清晰或更详细的描述,仅仅超过四分之一(8.26%)提供质量差或不充分的描述,五个(16%)省略了与我们框架相关的描述。结论:该评估为这些审查类型中普遍存在的报告实践提供了重要的见解。随着时间的推移,方法和报告发生了很大的变化。早期的QES不一定省略重要的报告组成部分,而是我们对应该完成和报告的内容的理解已经大大增加。QESs和mmr中报告质量的可变性强调了为QES开发系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)首选报告项目的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Associations of Social and Demographic Factors on the Outcomes of Ocular Melanoma and Other Adult Ocular Neoplasms in the United States: A Systematic Review. Using Large Language Models to Address Contextual Questions in Systematic Reviews. Correction to “Health Equity in Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial—Part 1 Getting Started With Health Equity in Your Review”, “Health Equity in Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial—Part 2 Implementing Health Equity Throughout Your Methods”, “Meta-Analysis Using Time-to-Event Data: A Tutorial” and “Split Body Trials in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: A Tutorial” Sensitivity and Precision of Search Strategies Built Using a Text-Mining Word Frequency Tool (PubReMiner) Compared to Current Best Practice for Building Search Strategies: A Study Within a Review (SWAR) Ninety-Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta-Research Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1