Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGiltenane, M
dc.contributor.authorO'Mahoney, A
dc.contributor.authorBianchim, MS
dc.contributor.authorBooth, A
dc.contributor.authorHarden, A
dc.contributor.authorHoughton, C
dc.contributor.authorFrance, EF
dc.contributor.authorAmes, H
dc.contributor.authorFlemming, K
dc.contributor.authorSutcliffe, K
dc.contributor.authorGarside, R
dc.contributor.authorPantoja, T
dc.contributor.authorNoyes, J
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-14T13:19:18Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.date.updated2025-02-13T17:00:55Z
dc.description.abstractBackground 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 assessmenten_GB
dc.identifier.citationAwaiting citation and DOIen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/140054
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-6022-452X | 0000-0003-1649-4773 (Garside, Ruth)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWiley / Cochrane Collaborationen_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder temporary indefinite embargo pending publication by Wiley. No embargo required on publicationen_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.subjectqualitative evidence synthesisen_GB
dc.subjectreporting qualityen_GB
dc.subjectmixed methods reviewsen_GB
dc.subjectquality assessmenten_GB
dc.titleAssessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the Cochrane Libraryen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2025-02-14T13:19:18Z
dc.identifier.issn2832-9023
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript.en_GB
dc.descriptionData availability statement: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalCochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methodsen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2025-02-13
dcterms.dateSubmitted2024-10-31
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2025-02-13
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2025-02-13T17:00:57Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.panelAen_GB
exeter.rights-retention-statementNo


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 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.
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.