Reporting of Qualitative Research Using Large Language Models (COREQ+LLM): A Delphi-based Extension of the COREQ Reporting Guideline
Fehring, L.; Frings, J.; Rust, P.; Kempny, C.; Thuermann, P.; Tamerler, E.; Meister, S.
Show abstract
Background: Qualitative research provides insights into human behavior, perspectives, and lived experience. While existing standards like the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) have improved transparency and rigor, the integration of large language models (LLMs) into qualitative research introduces new challenges for not covered by current guidelines. LLMs transform analytic processes and blur the line between human interpretation and algorithmic text generation, raising concerns about transparency, authorship, and epistemic trust. The here presented COREQ+LLM guideline extends COREQ to establish comprehensive reporting standards for LLM use in qualitative research. Methods: The study followed the EQUATOR Network's guideline development framework in two phases: (1) a systematic scoping review to identify best practices for reporting LLM use in qualitative research, and (2) a Delphi consensus process with international experts in qualitative research, AI, medicine, ethics, and journal editing to develop a comprehensive reporting checklist. Findings: The scoping review identified 149 studies relevant for full-text review. From this literature, 29 preliminary reporting items were extracted. In the first Delphi round, international experts (N=141) assessed the items' relevance. 20 items were accepted for inclusion in the guideline (>75% agreement); however, four required reevaluation in the second round, five underwent wording revisions, and six new items were proposed. In the second Delphi round (N=115; retention rate 82%), one was excluded, while four items still lacked consensus. Remaining items were discussed in a virtual consensus conference with nine representatives of the expert panel, resulting in the inclusion of two and the exclusion of two others. The final checklist comprises 31 items grouped into seven categories, serving as an extension of the original COREQ checklist. Interpretation: COREQ+LLM offers structured, consensus-based guidance to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor in qualitative research using LLMs. Its adoption will support researchers, reviewers, and editors in maintaining trust and scientific integrity.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Participatory research in health intervention studies involving migrants: a systematic review 93%
- Mapping factors that may influence attrition and retention of midwives: a scoping review protocol 93%
- Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers’ experiences, and stakeholder engagement protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol For The Development Of A Core Outcome Set For Respectful Maternal And Newborn Care In A Low-Middle Income Setting 93%
- Maternity care professionals’ preparedness for and experiences of screening and responding to disclosures of domestic violence in the peripartum period: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis 93%
- Protocol for a scoping review investigating success in research capacity building for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Scientific hypothesis generation process in clinical research: a secondary data analytic tool versus experience study protocol 91%
- The Womens Wellness After Giving Birth Program (WWAGBP) for Vietnamese women: A single-arm trial protocol 91%
- Effects of cash transfer and incentive programs on service utilization and treatment outcomes related to neglected tropical diseases and their impact on health and nutrition in low and middle-income countries: a protocol for a systematic review 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 92%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 92%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.