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
_version_ 1783752006390775808
author 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.
author_facet 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.
author_sort de Jong, Y.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8436506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84365062021-09-13 A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake 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. BMC Med Res Methodol Research 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. BioMed Central 2021-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8436506/ /pubmed/34511068 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01363-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
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.
A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake
title A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake
title_full A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake
title_fullStr A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake
title_full_unstemmed A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake
title_short A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake
title_sort meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of coreq- and entreq-checklists, regardless of modest uptake
topic Research
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT dejongy ametareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT vanderwillikem ametareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT mildersj ametareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT voorendcgn ametareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT mortonrachaell ametareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT dekkerfw ametareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT meulemany ametareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT vandiepenm ametareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT dejongy metareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT vanderwillikem metareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT mildersj metareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT voorendcgn metareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT mortonrachaell metareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT dekkerfw metareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT meulemany metareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake
AT vandiepenm metareviewdemonstratesimprovedreportingqualityofqualitativereviewsfollowingthepublicationofcoreqandentreqchecklistsregardlessofmodestuptake

Ejemplares similares