Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

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

Authors: Y. de Jong, E. M. van der Willik, J. Milders, C. G. N. Voorend, Rachael L. Morton, F. W. Dekker, Y. Meuleman, M. van Diepen

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

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.

Available only for authorised users

Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008;337:a288. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a288 [published Online First: 2008/08/09].CrossRefPubMed

Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284(4):478–82. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.4.478 [published Online First: 2000/07/25].CrossRefPubMed

O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Drabble SJ, et al. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889 [published Online First: 2013/06/26].

Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3496. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3496 [published Online First: 2009/09/12].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Reynolds J, Kizito J, Ezumah N, et al. Quality assurance of qualitative research: a review of the discourse. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-9-43 [published Online First: 2011/12/21].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [published Online First: 2007/09/18].CrossRefPubMed

Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, et al. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581960501000110 [published Online First: 2005/01/26].CrossRefPubMed

Butler A, Hall H, Copnell B. A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016;13(3):241–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12134 [published Online First: 2016/01/21].CrossRefPubMed

Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 [published Online First: 2012/11/29].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Hannes K, Heyvaert M, Slegers K, et al. Exploring the potential for a consolidated standard for reporting guidelines for qualitative research: an argument Delphi approach. Int J Qual Methods. 2015;14(4):1609406915611528. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915611528.CrossRef

11.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of Health Research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

EQUATOR Network: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research [Available from: https://www.equator-network.org/ accessed 11-11-2020.

13.

Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285(15):1992–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.15.1992 [published Online First: 2001/04/20].CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zamanipoor Najafabadi AH, Ramspek CL, Dekker FW, et al. TRIPOD statement: a preliminary pre-post analysis of reporting and methods of prediction models. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):e041537–e37. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041537.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Bastuji-Garin S, Sbidian E, Gaudy-Marqueste C, et al. Impact of STROBE statement publication on quality of observational study reporting: interrupted time series versus before-after analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e64733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064733 [published Online First: 2013/08/31].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Poorolajal J, Cheraghi Z, Irani AD, et al. Quality of Cohort Studies Reporting Post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement. Epidemiol Health. 2011;33:e2011005. https://doi.org/10.4178/epih/e2011005 [published Online First: 2011/07/01].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Sekula P, Mallett S, Altman DG, et al. Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178531 [published Online First: 2017/06/15].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, et al. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology. 2006;67(5):792–7. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000238386.41398.30 [published Online First: 2006/09/13].CrossRefPubMed

19.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [published Online First: 2009/07/22].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Ype, Jong Chava L., Ramspek Carmine, Zoccali Kitty J., Jager Friedo W., Dekker Merel, Diepen Appraising prediction research: a guide and meta‐review on bias and applicability assessment using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.13913.

21.

Ype Jong, Esmee M. Willik, Jet Milders, Yvette Meuleman, Rachael L. Morton, Friedo W. Dekker, Merel Diepen Person centred care provision and care planning in chronic kidney disease: which outcomes matter? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-021-02489-6.

22.

Walters LA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving clinically relevant qualitative studies in EMBASE. Qual Health Res. 2006;16(1):162–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305284027 [published Online First: 2005/12/01].CrossRefPubMed

23.

Barroso J, Gollop CJ, Sandelowski M, et al. The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25(2):153–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945902250034 [published Online First: 2003/04/02].CrossRefPubMed

24.

Godinho MA, Gudi N, Milkowska M, et al. Completeness of reporting in Indian qualitative public health research: a systematic review of 20 years of literature. J Public Health. 2019;41(2):405–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdy122.CrossRef

25.

Al-Moghrabi D, Tsichlaki A, Alkadi S, et al. How well are dental qualitative studies involving interviews and focus groups reported? J Dent. 2019;84:44–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.001 [published Online First: 2019/03/14].CrossRefPubMed

26.

Buus N, Agdal R. Can the use of reporting guidelines in peer-review damage the quality and contribution of qualitative health care research? Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(10):1289–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.02.012 [published Online First: 2013/03/20].CrossRefPubMed

27.

Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322(7294):1115–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115 [published Online First: 2001/05/05].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, et al. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(3):223–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.13.3.223 [published Online First: 2004/06/04].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008;337:a1035. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1035 [published Online First: 2008/08/09].CrossRefPubMed

30.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018) CASP Qualitative checklist [Available from: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf accessed accessed 14-10-2020.

31.

Kmet L, Lee R. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of FieldsAHFMRHTA Initiative20040213. HTA Initiative. 2004;2. https://www.ihe.ca/publications/standard-quality-assessment-criteria-for-evaluating-primary-research-papers-froma-variety-of-fields.

32.

Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895 [published Online First: 2015/10/28].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34:1–7. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221.CrossRef

34.

Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev. 2012;1:60. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-60 [published Online First: 2012/12/01].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Vandenbroucke JP. STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND, ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK... and CONSORT: for whom does the guideline toll? J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(6):594–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.003 [published Online First: 2009/02/03].CrossRefPubMed

Title: A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake
Authors: Y. de Jong
E. M. van der Willik
J. Milders
C. G. N. Voorend
Rachael L. Morton
F. W. Dekker
Y. Meuleman
M. van Diepen
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01363-1

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Independence estimators for re-randomisation trials in multi-episode settings: a simulation study

Quantifying parent engagement in the randomized Fuel for Fun impact study identified design considerations and BMI relationships

Communicating incidental and reportable findings from research MRIs: considering factors beyond the findings in an underrepresented pediatric population

Standardizing registry data to the OMOP Common Data Model: experience from three pulmonary hypertension databases

Methods to support evidence-informed decision-making in the midst of COVID-19: creation and evolution of a rapid review service from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools

Impact of limited sample size and follow-up on single event survival extrapolation for health technology assessment: a simulation study