4.4 Article

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

Journal

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01363-1

Keywords

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

Funding

  1. Dutch Kidney Foundation [16OKG12]
  2. Australian NHMRC TRIP Fellowship [1150989]
  3. University of Sydney, Robinson Fellowship
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1150989] Funding Source: NHMRC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The uptake of COREQ and ENTREQ guidelines in qualitative reviews was found to be modest, but primary qualitative studies showed improvement in reporting quality, potentially facilitated by the publication of COREQ guidelines.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available