Limited consensus in expert opinions on studies evaluating the design, conduct, analysis, or reporting of health research: a survey study.

Silva, Jessyca Matos and Lima, João Pedro and Lawson, Daeria O and Nyambi, Agatha and Sadeghirad, Behnam and Logie, Carmen and Moher, David and Pieper, Dawid and Collins, Gary and Guyatt, Gordon and Van Spall, Harriette and Ariel Franco, Juan Victor and Thabane, Lehana and Puljak, Livia and Murad, M Hassan and Vanstone, Meredith and Tugwell, Peter and Schandelmaier, Stefan and Welch, Vivian and Samaan, Zainab and Brignardello-Petersen, Romina and Darzi, Andrea J and Mbuagbaw, Lawrence (2026) Limited consensus in expert opinions on studies evaluating the design, conduct, analysis, or reporting of health research: a survey study. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 194. No. 112245. ISSN 0895-4356 (print); 1878-5921 (online)

Text Silva_Schandelmaier_J of Clin Epid_2026.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Repository staff only Download (1MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Methodological studies critically evaluate how health research is designed, conducted, analyzed, and reported. Despite their growing importance, currently, there is no reporting tailored to this type of research, which hampers the visibility, reproducibility, and overall utility of the findings of methodological studies. METHODS We administered a survey to researchers with expertise in designing and performing methodological studies to gather their opinions on appropriate terminology, how they should be categorized, and key reporting elements. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, with a content validity ratio applied to determine appropriateness. Qualitative survey responses were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULT Of 499 invited, a total of 119 participants completed the survey (response rate 23%). None of the 13 proposed nomenclatures met the threshold for appropriateness. Of the four proposed study categories, two (study aim and study design) were retained based on expert ratings. Among 23 proposed reporting items, 15 were endorsed for further evaluation. Qualitative responses were condensed and categorized, identifying the importance of flexibility in terminology and concerns about categorization. CONCLUSION There is substantial disagreement among experts regarding key aspects of methodological studies, particularly related to terminology. While some agreement was observed around study categories and reporting elements, diverse and sometimes conflicting perspectives underscore the complexity of standardizing methodological studies. These findings reinforce the need for a collaborative consensus process to develop reporting guidance that is both practical and adaptable to the nuances of this field.

Actions (login required)

View Item