Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/37019
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the Cochrane Library
Author(s): Giltenane, Martina
O’Mahony, Aoife
Bianchim, Mayara Silveira
Booth, Andrew
Harden, Angela
Houghton, Catherine
France, Emma F
Ames, Heather
Flemming, Kate
Sutcliffe, Katy
Garside, Ruth
Pantoja, Tomas
Noyes, Jane
Contact Email: emma.france@stir.ac.uk
Keywords: mixed-methods reviews
qualitative evidence synthesis
quality assessment
reporting quality
Issue Date: May-2025
Date Deposited: 17-Feb-2025
Citation: 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
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.
DOI Link: 10.1002/cesm.70023
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.
Licence URL(s): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Giltenane-etal-CESM-2025.pdfFulltext - Published Version4.97 MBAdobe PDFView/Open



This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

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.