Skip to main content

Table 2 Users’ reasons for rating 7/10 or lower. Users could select more than one multiple-choice option

From: GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines

Why did you rate a [e.g., 6]?  
The checklist was too long 62/159 (39%)
The checklist was confusing 51/159 (32%)
The checklist items were not relevant to my work 50/159 (31%)
The website was confusing 6/159 (4%)
Free text answers
• Too difficult to complete the list points
• We have already done the Prisma checklist. These two checklists overlap each other.
• No clue what you're talking about. Nobody asked me to do a checklist.
• Some of the checklist items were confusing
• Some items are not relevant
• Already addressed in my paper.
• Checklist assume too much about the nature of ‘good’ work
• Check list is the same as the one on the journal guidelines
• I completed the whole form and then when I clicked the button at the end it deleted all my answers
• Some of the checklist were not relevant to my work and i taught it would have looked at my discussion in detail
• The checklist is still rather broad
• The checklist mentioned several items which were included in the article (e.g. corresponding author, subheadings)
• Checklist mentioned that items were missing when they were present but with a slightly different spelling e.g. Conflicts of Interest instead of Conflicts of Interests
• Not listed in the journal’s Instructions to authors
• It was incorrect
• Good
• Some items were not available to my article.
• 7 is a decent rating
• Fair, the checklist differs with different countries
• COREQ checklist was used.
20/159 (13%)