Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the Cochrane Library

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

AU - Booth, Andrew

AU - Harden, Angela

AU - Houghton, Catherine

AU - France, Emma

AU - Flemming, Kate

AU - Sutcliffe, Katy

AU - Garside, Ruth

AU - Pantoja, Tomas

AU - Noyes, Jane

N1 - © 2025 The Author(s).

PY - 2025/4/15

Y1 - 2025/4/15

N2 - 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

AB - 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

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

M1 - e70023

ER -