Quality of reporting for qualitative studies in pediatric urology—A scoping review

Abstract

Qualitative research has gained popularity in pediatric urology due to rich data and insights about quantitative results. To date, there has been no study evaluating the comprehensiveness of the reporting of these studies based on established guidelines. The objective of this study is to perform a scoping review of the quality of reporting in recent qualitative studies in pediatric urology based on a predominant checklist, the 21-item Standards of Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) and identify areas for improvement. In accordance with the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews, we performed a systematic literature search to identify qualitative studies on pediatric urology topics published from 2015 to 2021. We used clustering technology to eliminate articles with unrelated keywords. Articles not in English and those published prior to 2015 were excluded. Two reviewers performed title/abstract screening and full text review and resolved discrepancies by consensus. We reported the median and interquartile range of total SRQR scores (maximum: 21). SRQR-reported items were summarized; overall proportion of reported items for each article was estimated. Bivariate analyses examined the association between study characteristics and SRQR tertile. Simple linear regression was performed to examine the relationship between year and SRQR score. Of the 2562 titles/abstracts screened, 26 studies were included. The most common topics were hypospadias and congenital adrenal hyperplasia (Summary Figure). The median total score was 18.0 of 21 possible items (interquartile range: 3). All studies reported an abstract, problem formulation, purpose/context of the study, data collection methods, integration with prior work, limitations, and ethics review board approval. Most (25/26; 96.2%) reported sampling strategy, data analysis, synthesis/interpretation of findings and links to empirical data. Less fulfilled items included: a title identifying the study as qualitative (11/26, 42.3%), qualitative approach & research paradigm (11/26, 42.3%) and researcher characteristics & reflexivity (9/26, 34.6%). There was no association between study characteristics and SRQR score. There was a statistically significant increase in the SRQR score during the study period (β=1.0, p<0.0001). Studies fulfilled most SRQR checklist items. There was significant improvement in quality during the study period. Limitations include possible recency bias and exclusion of articles due to inconsistent categorizations in Pub Med. The quality and trajectory of qualitative study reporting in pediatric urology is encouraging. SRQR standards should be implemented by journals to continue improving the robustness and transparency of future qualitative manuscripts in pediatric urology.