ArticlePloS one2026
Endorsement of the 32-item Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative (COREQ) and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) by Chinese journals of nursing: A survey of editors and review of journal instructions for authors.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the endorsement of the 32-item Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative (COREQ) and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) in the instructions for authors (IFA) of Chinese nursing journals. The awareness of Chinese editors of the COREQ and SRQR, together with their application and requirements for following the standards, were also investigated. These findings would assist as the endorsement, application, and promotion of the COREQ and SRQR in Chinese nursing journals, and improve the reporting quality of qualitative research in nursing.
methodsNursing journals were identified from the National Press and Publication Administration. The IFA and applications of the COREQ and SRQR were assessed. The editors of the journals were asked about their awareness of and demand for the COREQ checklist and SRQR standards, as well as their implementation at different stages of the publication process, including manuscript submission, editing, and peer review.
resultsA total of 29 nursing journals were included, and only 2 journals (6.9%, 2/29) mentioned the COREQ and SRQR in their IFA. Among the 24 surveyed editors, only 45.83% (11/24) and 33.33% (8/24) were aware of the COREQ and SRQR, respectively. None of the surveyed editors required authors to follow the COREQ/SRQR at the submission stage, editors to follow COREQ/SRQR in the journal editing and processing stage, and reviewers to use the COREQ/SRQR in the expert review stage.
conclusionNursing journals in China endorsing the COREQ and SRQR constitute a small percentage of the total. In addition, both awareness and application of the COREQ and SRQR were poor among nursing journal editors. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the China Periodicals Association undertake measures to encourage and support the endorsement of biomedical research reporting guidelines in nursing journals. Also, the education and training of journal editors, researchers, and medical students on biomedical research reporting guidelines should be strengthened.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.