qoder-config/skills/deep-research/references/equator_reporting_guidelines.md

EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines — Research Design and Reporting Guideline Mapping

Purpose

Quick reference for EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) reporting guidelines. Assists the research_architect_agent in selecting the appropriate reporting checklist during the methodology design stage, and the report_compiler_agent in ensuring report completeness during the writing stage.

---

1. Research Design → Reporting Guideline Mapping Table

Research Design	Primary Reporting Guideline	Applicable Scenario
Systematic review / Meta-analysis	PRISMA	Literature review integrating multiple studies
Randomized controlled trial (RCT)	CONSORT	Intervention experiments with random assignment
Observational study (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional)	STROBE	Non-interventional quantitative observational research
Qualitative research	COREQ	Interviews, focus groups, observation
Quality improvement study	SQUIRE	Systematic quality improvement project reports
Diagnostic accuracy study	STARD	Diagnostic tool evaluation
Prognostic study	TRIPOD	Prediction model development and validation
Case report	CARE	Single or small number of in-depth case reports
Economic evaluation	CHEERS	Cost-effectiveness analysis
Mixed methods research	GRAMMS	Mixed qualitative-quantitative designs
Animal study	ARRIVE	Animal experiments
Network meta-analysis	PRISMA-NMA	Multiple comparison meta-analysis
Scoping review	PRISMA-ScR	Scoping review (less stringent than systematic review)

---

2. PRISMA — Systematic Review Condensed Checklist

Full Name: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Version: PRISMA 2020 (latest)

Core Reporting Items

#	Item	Description	Necessity
1	Title	Clearly identify as a systematic review (with or without meta-analysis)	Required
2	Abstract	Structured abstract (background, purpose, methods, results, conclusions)	Required
3	Registration	Registration number and platform (e.g., PROSPERO)	Strongly recommended
4	Eligibility criteria	Inclusion/exclusion criteria in PICOS or PEO format	Required
5	Information sources	Databases searched and dates	Required
6	Search strategy	Complete search strategy for at least one database	Required
7	Selection process	Screening process (number of reviewers, how disagreements were resolved)	Required
8	Data extraction	Data extraction methods	Required
9	Risk of bias	Risk of bias assessment tool and results	Required
10	Synthesis methods	Synthesis method (narrative / meta-analytic)	Required
11	PRISMA flow diagram	Literature screening flow diagram	Required
12	Results	Characteristics of each study, bias assessment, synthesis results	Required
13	Discussion	Certainty of evidence, limitations, relationship to existing knowledge	Required
14	Funding	Funding sources and conflicts of interest	Required

PRISMA Flow Diagram Template

Records identified (n = )
├── Database searching (n = )
└── Other sources (n = )
         ↓
Duplicates removed (n = )
         ↓
Records screened (n = )
├── Excluded (n = )
         ↓
Reports sought for retrieval (n = )
├── Not retrieved (n = )
         ↓
Reports assessed for eligibility (n = )
├── Excluded, with reasons (n = )
│   ├── Reason 1 (n = )
│   ├── Reason 2 (n = )
│   └── Reason 3 (n = )
         ↓
Studies included in review (n = )
├── In qualitative synthesis (n = )
└── In quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) (n = )

---

3. CONSORT — Randomized Controlled Trial Condensed Checklist

Full Name: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Version: CONSORT 2010 + extensions

Core Reporting Items

#	Item	Description
1	Title & Abstract	Identify as RCT; structured abstract
2	Background	Scientific background and trial rationale
3	Objectives	Specific objectives or hypotheses
4	Trial design	Design type (parallel, crossover, factorial, etc.) and allocation ratio
5	Participants	Eligibility criteria, settings, data collection locations
6	Interventions	Specific description of each group's intervention (including how and when administered)
7	Outcomes	Primary and secondary outcome measures, including definitions and time points
8	Sample size	Sample size calculation method (power analysis)
9	Randomisation	Random sequence generation method, allocation concealment mechanism
10	Blinding	Blinding implementation (who was blinded, how it was implemented)
11	Statistical methods	Statistical analysis methods, ITT/PP analysis
12	Flow diagram	Participant flow diagram (recruitment → allocation → follow-up → analysis)
13	Results	Results per group, effect sizes and precision (CI)
14	Harms	Adverse events or side effects
15	Limitations	Sources of bias, imprecision, multiple comparisons
16	Registration	Trial registration number

Higher Education Research Application Notes

RCTs in the education field (e.g., comparing teaching methods) commonly face:

• Inability to fully randomize (cluster randomization is more common)
• Difficulty implementing blinding (teachers/students know their group)
• Recommended to use CONSORT-SPI (Social and Psychological Interventions extension)

---

4. STROBE — Observational Study Condensed Checklist

Full Name: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Applicable to: Cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies

Core Reporting Items

#	Item	Description
1	Title & Abstract	Indicate the study design type
2	Background	Scientific background, study rationale
3	Objectives	Specific objectives, pre-specified hypotheses
4	Study design	Clearly state the study design (cohort / case-control / cross-sectional)
5	Setting	Setting, location, relevant dates (recruitment, exposure, follow-up)
6	Participants	Eligibility criteria, data sources, sampling method
7	Variables	Outcome variables, exposure variables, potential confounders, effect modifiers
8	Data sources	Data sources and measurement methods for each variable
9	Bias	Methods for addressing potential sources of bias
10	Study size	How the sample size was determined
11	Statistical methods	Statistical methods (including confounder handling, missing data handling)
12	Results	Descriptive statistics, main results (including effect sizes, CI, p-value)
13	Discussion	Key findings, limitations, generalizability, consistency with other studies
14	Funding	Funding sources

Higher Education Research Application Notes

Common observational studies in higher education:

• Student learning outcome cross-sectional survey → cross-sectional STROBE
• Graduate employment tracking → cohort STROBE
• Dropout risk factor analysis → case-control STROBE

---

5. COREQ — Qualitative Research Condensed Checklist

Full Name: Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research Applicable to: Interviews, focus groups

Core Reporting Items (32 items, across 3 domains)

Domain 1: Research Team and Reflexivity

#	Item	Description
1	Interviewer/facilitator	Who conducted the interviews or facilitated focus groups
2	Credentials	Researcher qualifications
3	Occupation	Researcher's professional identity
4	Gender	Researcher gender
5	Experience & training	Qualitative research experience and training
6	Relationship with participants	Researcher's relationship with participants
7	Participant knowledge	Participants' level of knowledge about the research

Domain 2: Study Design

#	Item	Description
8	Methodological orientation	Theoretical framework (e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology)
9	Sampling	Sampling strategy and method
10	Method of approach	How participants were contacted
11	Sample size	Number of participants
12	Non-participation	Number and reasons for refusal to participate
13	Setting	Interview location
14	Presence of non-participants	Whether non-participants were present during interviews
15	Description of sample	Participant demographics
16	Interview guide	Whether an interview guide was used and whether it was pilot-tested
17	Repeat interviews	Whether repeat interviews were conducted
18	Audio/visual recording	Whether audio/video was recorded
19	Field notes	Whether field notes were taken
20	Duration	Interview duration
21	Data saturation	Whether data saturation was discussed
22	Transcripts returned	Whether transcripts were returned to participants for feedback

Domain 3: Analysis and Findings

#	Item	Description
23	Data analysis	Analysis method (e.g., thematic analysis, IPA)
24	Software	Analysis software used
25	Participant checking	Whether participants confirmed the findings
26	Quotations	Whether quotations are presented to support themes
27	Data and findings consistency	Consistency between data and findings
28	Clarity of major themes	Whether major themes are clearly presented
29	Clarity of minor themes	Whether minor themes are clearly presented

---

6. SQUIRE — Quality Improvement Study Condensed Checklist

Full Name: Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence Version: SQUIRE 2.0 Applicable to: Quality improvement projects, systematic quality improvement, higher education quality assurance (QA) research

Core Reporting Items

#	Item	Description
1	Title	Identify as a quality improvement study
2	Abstract	Structured abstract
3	Problem description	Nature and severity of the quality problem
4	Available knowledge	Known relevant evidence
5	Rationale	Theoretical basis for the improvement initiative
6	Specific aims	Specific improvement goals (quantifiable)
7	Context	Environmental context of the improvement
8	Intervention(s)	Specific description of improvement measures
9	Study of the intervention(s)	How the improvement effectiveness was evaluated
10	Measures	Outcome measures, process measures, balancing measures
11	Analysis	Quantitative/qualitative analysis methods
12	Ethical considerations	Ethics review (if applicable)
13	Results	Improvement results (including time series data)
14	Discussion	Key findings, relationship to context, generalizability
15	Limitations	Study limitations

Particularly Applicable for Higher Education QA Research

SQUIRE is especially valuable as a reference for the following HE quality assurance research:

• Teaching quality improvement: Introduction and evaluation of new teaching strategies
• Curriculum reform: Tracking the effects of curriculum redesign
• Student support service improvement: Systematic improvement of tutoring, counseling, and learning support
• HEEACT accreditation self-improvement: Improvement actions and tracking in response to accreditation findings
• Institutional research (IR)-driven improvement: Data-based decision-making and improvement cycles

---

7. Higher Education Research Context Recommendations

Commonly Used Guidelines Ranking

Rank	Guideline	Common HE Usage Scenario
1	PRISMA	Systematic review of education policy, teaching strategy meta-analysis
2	COREQ	Teacher/student experience interviews, focus groups
3	STROBE	Student surveys, institutional data analysis
4	SQUIRE	Teaching quality improvement, QA accreditation
5	CONSORT	Teaching intervention experiments (less common but high impact)

Research Design Quick Selection

What is your research type?
│
├── Integrating existing research → PRISMA
│   ├── Systematic review → PRISMA 2020
│   ├── Scoping review → PRISMA-ScR
│   └── Meta-analysis → PRISMA + MOOSE
│
├── Intervention experiment → CONSORT
│   ├── Individual randomization → CONSORT 2010
│   ├── Class/school randomization → CONSORT-Cluster
│   └── Social/psychological intervention → CONSORT-SPI
│
├── Observational survey → STROBE
│   ├── Cross-sectional survey → STROBE-CS
│   ├── Follow-up study → STROBE-Cohort
│   └── Retrospective comparison → STROBE-CC
│
├── Qualitative research → COREQ
│   ├── Interviews → COREQ
│   ├── Focus groups → COREQ
│   └── Ethnography → SRQR (alternative)
│
└── Quality improvement → SQUIRE
    ├── PDSA cycle → SQUIRE 2.0
    └── QA/accreditation improvement → SQUIRE 2.0

---

Quick Reference: 3 Steps to Choosing a Reporting Guideline

1. Identify your research design: What type of research design is your study?
2. Check the mapping table: Find the corresponding reporting guideline
3. Download the checklist: Go to EQUATOR Network and download the full checklist

Reminder: Reporting guidelines represent the minimum standard, not the quality ceiling. Meeting the checklist doesn't guarantee high research quality, but failing to meet the checklist typically indicates deficiencies in reporting quality.