A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting

This is the first in-depth methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output of health-related meta-ETHnography journal papers published from 2012–2013.

Abstract

We believe this is the first in-depth methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting. Meta-ethnography is an evolving approach. Current reporting of methods, analysis and synthesis lacks clarity and comprehensiveness. This is a major barrier to use of meta-ethnography findings that could contribute significantly to the evidence base because it makes judging their rigour and credibility difficult. To realise the high potential value of meta-ethnography for enhancing health care and understanding patient experience requires reporting that clearly conveys the methodology, analysis and findings. Tailored meta-ethnography reporting guidelines, developed through expert consensus, could improve reporting.