Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1893/37019
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Giltenane, Martina | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | O’Mahony, Aoife | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Bianchim, Mayara Silveira | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Booth, Andrew | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Harden, Angela | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Houghton, Catherine | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | France, Emma F | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Ames, Heather | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Flemming, Kate | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Sutcliffe, Katy | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Garside, Ruth | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Pantoja, Tomas | en_UK |
dc.contributor.author | Noyes, Jane | en_UK |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-04-30T00:01:37Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2025-04-30T00:01:37Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2025-05 | en_UK |
dc.identifier.other | e70023 | en_UK |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1893/37019 | - |
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. | en_UK |
dc.language.iso | en | en_UK |
dc.publisher | Wiley Open Access | en_UK |
dc.relation | Giltenane M, O’Mahony A, Bianchim MS, Booth A, Harden A, Houghton C, France EF, 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. <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i>, 3 (3), Art. No.: e70023. https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70023 | en_UK |
dc.rights | © 2025 The Author(s). Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. | en_UK |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | en_UK |
dc.subject | mixed-methods reviews | en_UK |
dc.subject | qualitative evidence synthesis | en_UK |
dc.subject | quality assessment | en_UK |
dc.subject | reporting quality | en_UK |
dc.title | Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the Cochrane Library | en_UK |
dc.type | Journal Article | en_UK |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/cesm.70023 | en_UK |
dc.citation.jtitle | Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods | en_UK |
dc.citation.issn | 2832-9023 | en_UK |
dc.citation.issn | 2832-9023 | en_UK |
dc.citation.volume | 3 | en_UK |
dc.citation.issue | 3 | en_UK |
dc.citation.publicationstatus | Published | en_UK |
dc.citation.peerreviewed | Refereed | en_UK |
dc.type.status | VoR - Version of Record | en_UK |
dc.author.email | emma.france@stir.ac.uk | en_UK |
dc.citation.date | 15/04/2025 | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | University of Limerick, Ireland | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | University College Cork | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Bangor University | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | University of Sheffield | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | St George's, University of London | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | University of Galway | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | CHeCR | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Norwegian Institute of Public Health | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | University of York | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | University College London | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | University of Exeter | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile | en_UK |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Bangor University | en_UK |
dc.identifier.wtid | 2099839 | en_UK |
dc.contributor.orcid | 0000-0003-0876-7030 | en_UK |
dc.date.accepted | 2025-02-13 | en_UK |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2025-02-13 | en_UK |
dc.date.filedepositdate | 2025-02-17 | en_UK |
rioxxterms.apc | not required | en_UK |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Giltenane, Martina| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | O’Mahony, Aoife| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Bianchim, Mayara Silveira| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Booth, Andrew| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Harden, Angela| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Houghton, Catherine| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | France, Emma F|0000-0003-0876-7030 | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Ames, Heather| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Flemming, Kate| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Sutcliffe, Katy| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Garside, Ruth| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Pantoja, Tomas| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.author | Noyes, Jane| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.project | Internal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331 | en_UK |
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate | 2025-04-28 | en_UK |
local.rioxx.licence | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2025-04-28| | en_UK |
local.rioxx.filename | Giltenane-etal-CESM-2025.pdf | en_UK |
local.rioxx.filecount | 1 | en_UK |
local.rioxx.source | 2832-9023 | en_UK |
Appears in Collections: | Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Giltenane-etal-CESM-2025.pdf | Fulltext - Published Version | 4.97 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
This item is protected by original copyright |
A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.