loading page

Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the Cochrane Library
  • +9
  • Martina Giltenane,
  • Aoife O'Mahony,
  • Mayara Silveira Bianchim,
  • Andrew Booth,
  • Angela Harden,
  • Catherine Houghton,
  • Emma France,
  • Kate Flemming,
  • Katy Sutcliffe,
  • Ruth Garside,
  • Tomas Pantoja,
  • Jane Noyes
Martina Giltenane
University of Limerick Faculty of Education and Health Sciences

Corresponding Author:martina.giltenane@ul.ie

Author Profile
Aoife O'Mahony
University College Cork
Author Profile
Mayara Silveira Bianchim
Bangor University
Author Profile
Andrew Booth
Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research
Author Profile
Angela Harden
City University of London
Author Profile
Catherine Houghton
University of Galway College of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences
Author Profile
Emma France
University of Stirling
Author Profile
Kate Flemming
University of York
Author Profile
Katy Sutcliffe
UCL
Author Profile
Ruth Garside
University of Exeter
Author Profile
Tomas Pantoja
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
Author Profile
Jane Noyes
Bangor University
Author Profile

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%) of the reviews achieved a score of at least 80%, 18 (58%) required fuller detail in their reporting (scoring between 65%-79%) and 5 (16%) achieved a score of less than 65%. Conclusion This assessment offers important insights into the reporting practices prevalent in these review types and underscores the need for ongoing surveillance. The variability in reporting quality within QESs and MMRs reinforces the need to develop Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) specifically for QES.
01 Nov 2024Submitted to Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
04 Nov 2024Submission Checks Completed
04 Nov 2024Assigned to Editor
11 Nov 2024Reviewer(s) Assigned
02 Dec 2024Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
08 Dec 2024Editorial Decision: Revise Major