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

BACKGROUND: Reviews 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 qualitat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Jong, Y., van der Willik, E. M., Milders, J., Voorend, C. G. N., Morton, Rachael L., Dekker, F. W., Meuleman, Y., van Diepen, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Research
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8436506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34511068
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01363-1
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Reviews 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. METHODS: Reviews 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. RESULTS: 1.695 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). CONCLUSION: The 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01363-1.

Ejemplares similares