METHODOLOGICAL STUDIES IN HEALTH RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY PRACTICES AND EXPERT OPINIONS

Abstract

Background: Methodological studies 1 critically evaluate how health research is designed, conducted, analyzed, and reported. Despite their growing importance, there is currently no dedicated reporting guideline tailored to MS, which hampers the visibility, reproducibility, and usability of their findings. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of 596 methodological studies across multiple databases to map current practices regarding nomenclature, study design, analysis, and reporting. In parallel, an international cross-sectional survey was conducted with 119 researchers experienced in methodological studies to gather expert opinions on appropriate terminology, study categories, and key reporting elements. Quantitative data from each phase were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative survey responses were explored thematically. Results: The review identified substantial inconsistencies in terminology and reporting practices among MS. Only a minority of studies (4.2%) defined their design clearly or followed reporting guidelines(22.7%). These guidelines, when mentioned, were general (e.g., PRISMA) and not specifically developed for methodological studies. Most studies (84.7%) did not report a protocol, and 16.6% failed to describe the type of analysis used. When reported, descriptive statistics (51%) and between-group comparisons (44%) were the most common analytic approaches. Eighty-five different terms were used to label MS. The survey findings reflected similar concerns, with no single proposed term reaching expert consensus.