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

doi:10.1002/cesm.70023

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

School of Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

31 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundOver 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.AimThis review aimed to assess the reporting quality of published QESs and MMRs with a qualitative component in the Cochrane Library.MethodsAll 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.ResultsThirty‐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.ConclusionThis 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.

Original language	English
Article number	e70023
Journal	Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
Volume	3
Issue number	3
Early online date	15 Apr 2025
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70023
Publication status	Published - May 2025

Access to Document

10.1002/cesm.70023Licence: CC BY

Response to Reviewers Synthesis_Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence synthesis in the Cochrane LibraryAccepted author manuscript, 1.2 MB
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods - 2025 - Giltenane - Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitativeFinal published version, 4.85 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Giltenane, M., O'Mahony, A., Bianchim, M. S., Booth, A., Harden, A., Houghton, C., France, E. F., Ames, H., Flemming, K., Sutcliffe, K., Garside, R., Pantoja, T., & Noyes, J. (2025). Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the cochrane library. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, 3(3), Article e70023. https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70023

@article{421b41f84b8f4373bc83576d157a384c,

title = "Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the cochrane library",

abstract = "AbstractBackgroundOver 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.AimThis review aimed to assess the reporting quality of published QESs and MMRs with a qualitative component in the Cochrane Library.MethodsAll 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.ResultsThirty‐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.ConclusionThis 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.",

author = "Martina Giltenane and Aoife O'Mahony and Bianchim, \{Mayara S.\} and Andrew Booth and Angela Harden and Catherine Houghton and France, \{Emma F.\} and Heather Ames and Kate Flemming and Katy Sutcliffe and Ruth Garside and Tomas Pantoja and Jane Noyes",

year = "2025",

month = may,

doi = "10.1002/cesm.70023",

language = "English",

volume = "3",

journal = "Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods",

issn = "2832-9023",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the cochrane library

AU - Giltenane, Martina

AU - O'Mahony, Aoife

AU - Bianchim, Mayara S.

AU - Booth, Andrew

AU - Harden, Angela

AU - Houghton, Catherine

AU - France, Emma F.

AU - Ames, Heather

AU - Flemming, Kate

AU - Sutcliffe, Katy

AU - Garside, Ruth

AU - Pantoja, Tomas

AU - Noyes, Jane

PY - 2025/5

Y1 - 2025/5

N2 - AbstractBackgroundOver 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.AimThis review aimed to assess the reporting quality of published QESs and MMRs with a qualitative component in the Cochrane Library.MethodsAll 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.ResultsThirty‐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.ConclusionThis 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.

AB - AbstractBackgroundOver 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.AimThis review aimed to assess the reporting quality of published QESs and MMRs with a qualitative component in the Cochrane Library.MethodsAll 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.ResultsThirty‐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.ConclusionThis 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.

U2 - 10.1002/cesm.70023

DO - 10.1002/cesm.70023

M3 - Article

SN - 2832-9023

VL - 3

JO - Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

JF - Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

IS - 3

M1 - e70023

ER -

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

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this