Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the Cochrane Library
dc.contributor.author | Giltenane, M | |
dc.contributor.author | O'Mahoney, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Bianchim, MS | |
dc.contributor.author | Booth, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Harden, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Houghton, C | |
dc.contributor.author | France, EF | |
dc.contributor.author | Ames, H | |
dc.contributor.author | Flemming, K | |
dc.contributor.author | Sutcliffe, K | |
dc.contributor.author | Garside, R | |
dc.contributor.author | Pantoja, T | |
dc.contributor.author | Noyes, J | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-02-14T13:19:18Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2025 | |
dc.date.updated | 2025-02-13T17:00:55Z | |
dc.description.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. Keywords: qualitative evidence synthesis, reporting quality, mixed-methods reviews, quality assessment | en_GB |
dc.identifier.citation | Awaiting citation and DOI | en_GB |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/140054 | |
dc.identifier | ORCID: 0000-0002-6022-452X | 0000-0003-1649-4773 (Garside, Ruth) | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Wiley / Cochrane Collaboration | en_GB |
dc.rights.embargoreason | Under temporary indefinite embargo pending publication by Wiley. No embargo required on publication | en_GB |
dc.rights | © 2025 The author(s). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. | |
dc.subject | qualitative evidence synthesis | en_GB |
dc.subject | reporting quality | en_GB |
dc.subject | mixed methods reviews | en_GB |
dc.subject | quality assessment | en_GB |
dc.title | Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the Cochrane Library | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2025-02-14T13:19:18Z | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2832-9023 | |
dc.description | This is the author accepted manuscript. | en_GB |
dc.description | Data availability statement: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.journal | Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods | en_GB |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2025-02-13 | |
dcterms.dateSubmitted | 2024-10-31 | |
rioxxterms.version | AM | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2025-02-13 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2025-02-13T17:00:57Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | AM | |
refterms.panel | A | en_GB |
exeter.rights-retention-statement | No |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2025 The author(s). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.