The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Background. Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. Objective. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (indepth interviews and focus groups). Methods. We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Results. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Conclusions. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups

자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n71.full.pdf

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

/pdf/preferred-reporting-items-for-systematic-review-and-meta-mgb1uy0yle.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Titles & abstract s Titles & abstracts Include N=54 Include N=121 Include N=89 Exclude N = 0 Exclude N = 1,024 Exclude N = 21

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1

Much qualitative research is interview based, and this paper provides an outline of qualitative interview techniques and their application in medical settings. It explains the rationale for these techniques and shows how they can be used to research kinds of questions that are different from those dealt with by quantitative methods. Different types of qualitative interviews are described, and the way in which they differ from clinical consultations is emphasised. Practical guidance for conducting such interviews is given.

/pdf/qualitative-interviews-in-medical-research-5gtp3xal3r.pdf

Qualitative interviews in medical research.

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews

Objectives: To demonstrate the benefits of applying meta ethnography to the synthesis of qualitative research, by means of a worked example. Methods: Four papers about lay meanings of medicines were arbitrarily chosen. Noblit and Hare's seven-step process for conducting a meta ethnography was employed: getting started; deciding what is relevant to the initial interest; reading the studies; determining how the studies are related; translating the studies into one another; synthesising translations; and expressing the synthesis. Results: Six key concepts were identified: adherence/compliance; self-regulation; aversion; alternative coping strategies; sanctions; and selective disclosure. Four second-order interpretations (derived from the chosen papers) were identified, on the basis of which four third-order interpretations (based on the key concepts and second-order interpretations) were constructed. These were all linked together in a line of argument that accounts for patients' medicine-taking behaviour and communication with health professionals in different settings. Third-order interpretations were developed which were not only consistent with the original results but also extended beyond them. Conclusions: It is possible to use meta ethnography to synthesise the results of qualitative research. The worked example has produced middle-range theories in the form of hypotheses that could be tested by other researchers.

https://betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Using-meta-ethnography-to-synthesise-qualitatie-research.pdf

Nicky Britten

Papers

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1

Qualitative interviews in medical research.

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews

Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example.

Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care