Abstract
Objectives
To outline contemporary and novel developments for the presentation and reporting
of syntheses of qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence and provide
recommendations for the use of reporting guidelines.
Study Design and Setting
An overview of reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation
evidence syntheses drawing on current international literature and the collective
expert knowledge of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group.
Results
Several reporting guidelines exist that can be used or adapted to report syntheses
of qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence. Methods to develop
individual guidance varied. The use of a relevant reporting guideline can enhance
the transparency, consistency, and quality of reporting. Guidelines that exist are
generic, method specific, and for particular aspects of the reviewing process, searching.
Conclusion
Caution is expressed over the potential for reporting guidelines to produce a mechanistic
approach moving the focus away from the content and toward the procedural aspects
of the review. The use of a reporting guideline is recommended and a five-step decision
flowchart to guide the choice of reporting guideline is provided. Gaps remain in method-specific
reporting guidelines such as mixed-study, implementation, and process evaluation evidence
syntheses.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.JAMA. 1996; 276: 637-639
- The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improvingthe quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 657-662
- CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152: 726-732
- Guidelines for reporting health research: the EQUATOR Network's survey of guideline authors.PLoS Med. 2008; 5: e139
- EQUATOR Reporting guidelines for health research.Lancet. 2008; 31: 1149-1150
- Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19: 349-357
- Standards for reporting qualitative research a synthesis of recommendations.Acad Med. 2014; 89: 1245-1251
- A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 73: 19-28
- Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: a scoping review reveals poor operationalization of the methodological steps.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 73: 29-35
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000097
- Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.PLoS Med. 2010; 7: e1000217
- Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports.Qual Res. 2007; 7: 375-422
- “Brimful of STARLITE”: toward standards for reporting literature searches.J Med Libr Assoc. 2006; 94: 421
- A move to more transparent and systematic approaches of qualitative evidence synthesis: update of a review on published papers.Qual Res. 2012; 12: 402-442
- Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 181
- RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses.BMC Med. 2013; 11: 21
- RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews.BMC Med. 2013; 11: 20
- Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research.Implement Sci. 2012; 7: 33
- Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES).BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11: 115
- Fleisher P.G. An introduction to effectiveness, dissemination and implementation research. A resource manual for community-engaged research. University of California San Francisco Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) Community Engagement Program, San Francisco, University of California San Francisco2010
- Qualitative “trial-sibling” studies and “unrelated” qualitative studies contributed to complex intervention reviews.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 74: 133-143
- SPIRIT 2013 statement:Defining standard protocol items for Clinical trials.Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158: 200-207
- Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.Br Med J. 2014; 348: g1687
- The TREND group: improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement.Am J Public Health. 2004; 94: 361-366
- Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi.Implement Sci. 2015; 10: 1-10
- Reporting guidelines for implementation and operational research.Bull World Health Organ. 2016; 94: 58-64
- Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe).BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015; 15: 103
- Methodological systematic review of what's wrong with meta-ethnography reporting.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14: 119
- Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance.Br Med J. 2015; 350: h1258
- Exploring the potential for a consolidated standard for reporting guidelines for qualitative research: an argument Delphi Approach.Int J Qual Methods. 2015; 14https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915611528
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 05, 2017
Accepted:
October 4,
2017
Footnotes
Funding sources: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of interest: None.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
