A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake

BMC Medical Research Methodology

J. Milders¹  Y. Meuleman¹  F. W. Dekker¹  E. M. van der Willik¹  M. van Diepen¹  Y. de Jong²  C. G. N. Voorend³  Rachael L. Morton⁴ 

[1] Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands;Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands;Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands;Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands;NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;

关键词: Methodology;    Appraisal;    Qualitative research;    Meta-review;    Systematic review;    COREQ;    ENTREQ;    Impact study;    Uptake;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-021-01363-1

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundReviews of qualitative studies allow for deeper understanding of concepts and findings beyond the single qualitative studies. Concerns on study reporting quality led to the publication of the COREQ-guidelines for qualitative studies in 2007, followed by the ENTREQ-guidelines for qualitative reviews in 2012. The aim of this meta-review is to: 1) investigate the uptake of the COREQ- and ENTREQ- checklists in qualitative reviews; and 2) compare the quality of reporting of the primary qualitative studies included within these reviews prior- and post COREQ-publication.MethodsReviews were searched on 02-Sept-2020 and categorized as (1) COREQ- or (2) ENTREQ-using, (3) using both, or (4) non-COREQ/ENTREQ. Proportions of usage were calculated over time. COREQ-scores of the primary studies included in these reviews were compared prior- and post COREQ-publication using T-test with Bonferroni correction.Results1.695 qualitative reviews were included (222 COREQ, 369 ENTREQ, 62 both COREQ/ENTREQ and 1.042 non-COREQ/ENTREQ), spanning 12 years (2007–2019) demonstrating an exponential publication rate. The uptake of the ENTREQ in reviews is higher than the COREQ (respectively 28% and 17%), and increases over time. COREQ-scores could be extracted from 139 reviews (including 2.775 appraisals). Reporting quality improved following the COREQ-publication with 13 of the 32 signalling questions showing improvement; the average total score increased from 15.15 to 17.74 (p-value < 0.001).ConclusionThe number of qualitative reviews increased exponentially, but the uptake of the COREQ and ENTREQ was modest overall. Primary qualitative studies show a positive trend in reporting quality, which may have been facilitated by the publication of the COREQ.

【 授权许可】

CC BY