Giltenane Martina, O'Mahony Aoife, Bianchim Mayara S, Booth Andrew, Harden Angela, Houghton Catherine, France Emma F, Ames Heather, Flemming Kate, Sutcliffe Katy, Garside Ruth, Pantoja Tomas, Noyes Jane
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Health Research Institute University of Limerick Limerick Ireland.
School of Public Health University College Cork Cork Ireland.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2025 Apr 15;3(3):e70023. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70023. eCollection 2025 May.
Over ten years since the first qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was published in the Cochrane Library, QES and mixed-methods reviews (MMR) with a qualitative component have become increasingly common and influential in healthcare research and policy development. The quality of such reviews and the completeness with which they are reported is therefore of paramount importance.
This review aimed to assess the reporting quality of published QESs and MMRs with a qualitative component in the Cochrane Library.
All published QESs and MMRs were identified from the Cochrane Library. A bespoke framework developed by key international experts based on the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) and meta-ethnography reporting guidance (eMERGe) was used to code the quality of reporting of QESs and MMRs.
Thirty-one reviews were identified, including 11 MMRs. The reporting quality of the QESs and MMRs published by Cochrane varied considerably. Based on the criteria within our framework, just over a quarter (8, 26%) were considered to meet satisfactory reporting standards, 10 (32%) could have provided clearer or more detailed descriptions in their reporting, just over a quarter (8, 26%) provided poor quality or insufficient descriptions and five (16%) omitted descriptions relevant to our framework.
This assessment offers important insights into the reporting practices prevalent in these review types. Methodology and reporting have changed considerably over time. Earlier QES have not necessarily omitted important reporting components, but rather our understanding of what should be completed and reported has grown considerably. The variability in reporting quality within QESs and MMRs underscores the need to develop Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) specifically for QES.
自第一篇定性证据综合（QES）发表于《考克兰系统评价数据库》（Cochrane Library）至今已有十余年，包含定性成分的QES和混合方法综述（MMR）在医疗保健研究和政策制定中日益普遍且具有影响力。因此，此类综述的质量及其报告的完整性至关重要。
本综述旨在评估《考克兰系统评价数据库》中已发表的包含定性成分的QES和MMR的报告质量。
从《考克兰系统评价数据库》中识别出所有已发表的QES和MMR。由关键国际专家基于有效护理实践与组织（EPOC）、提高定性研究综合报告的透明度（ENTREQ）和元民族志报告指南（eMERGe）开发的定制框架，用于对QES和MMR的报告质量进行编码。
共识别出31篇综述，其中包括11篇MMR。考克兰发表的QES和MMR的报告质量差异很大。根据我们框架中的标准，略超过四分之一（8篇，26%）被认为符合令人满意的报告标准，10篇（32%）在报告中本可以提供更清晰或更详细的描述，略超过四分之一（8篇，26%）提供的描述质量较差或不充分，5篇（16%）遗漏了与我们框架相关的描述。
本评估为这些综述类型中普遍存在的报告实践提供了重要见解。随着时间的推移，方法和报告有了很大变化。早期的QES不一定遗漏重要的报告组成部分，而是我们对应完成和报告内容的理解有了很大增长。QES和MMR中报告质量的差异凸显了为定性证据综合专门制定系统评价与荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）的必要性。
