# Assessing the reporting quality of published qualitative evidence syntheses in the cochrane library

## TL;DR

This study evaluates how well qualitative evidence syntheses and mixed-methods reviews are reported in the Cochrane Library, finding significant variability in quality.

## Contribution

The study introduces a new framework for assessing reporting quality in qualitative evidence syntheses and mixed-methods reviews.

## Key findings

- Only 26% of reviews met satisfactory reporting standards.
- Reporting quality varied significantly across Cochrane reviews.
- The study highlights the need for PRISMA guidelines tailored to qualitative evidence syntheses.

## Abstract

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.

QESs and mixed‐methods reviews (those including data from both quantitative and qualitative research).