COREQ Checklist Checker
Review interview and focus-group reporting against COREQ 2007’s 32 items, including reflexivity, study design, analysis and evidence for findings.
2007 · Tong, Sainsbury and Craig. COREQ, Table 1, Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–357 · Paraphrased summaries · Verified · 32 numbered items
AGREE II is disabled: appraisal instrument; commercial use restricted.
Manuscript
Up to 150,000 characters. Choose Excerpt for a partial manuscript; missing reporting then stays unclear.
Drag a file here, or
PDF with selectable text, TXT or Markdown; maximum 10 MB. DOCX not supported. Scanned PDFs need OCR first.
One free manuscript. Rechecking identical text against another guideline is free.
OpenAI only: manuscript text is sent to our backend and OpenAI; not stored by this application. OpenAI retention policies apply. Your manuscript and report stay in this tab until you close or reload it; copy or download first.
Continue from reporting review to research
Use AnswerThis to explore literature relevant to the gaps identified in your reporting review. Copy or download this reporting assessment first.
How to use COREQ Checklist Checker
- Select the guideline and edition that match your report; choose a study-design variant for STROBE.
- Paste the manuscript or upload a readable file. Choose Full manuscript only when the entire relevant report is supplied; otherwise select Excerpt.
- Check reporting, then inspect each requirement, verdict, quotation and location against the official checklist.
- Copy or download the text report or CSV. Resolve missing information with the author team before preparing a journal submission.
What to check
- Confirm the guideline edition and document stage.
- Check all applicable parts of an item, not just a matching phrase.
- Compare quotations and locations with tables, supplements and the original manuscript.
- Treat the findings as an AI-assisted draft requiring author confirmation, never certification.
COREQ’s scope and its three domains
COREQ 2007 contains 32 items for reporting qualitative interviews and focus groups. Its domains cover the research team and reflexivity, study design, and analysis and findings. This is a focused reporting framework, not a universal checklist for every qualitative tradition. If your work uses a broader qualitative approach, compare its reporting purpose with SRQR before choosing a guideline. The two standards overlap, but switching names does not make their items equivalent.
The first domain asks who collected the data and how their background and relationship with participants might matter. The second addresses methodological orientation, sampling, recruitment, setting and data collection. The third examines coding, theme development, participant feedback and the presentation of findings. The report keeps every numbered item visible. A concise paraphrase makes the item easier to scan, while its source link lets you consult the full original wording and decide how it applies to your study.
Reflexivity needs concrete reporting
A statement that researchers were experienced does not explain their credentials, occupations, relevant training or relationship with participants. Likewise, naming an interviewer does not establish what participants knew about that person’s goals or interests. These details help a reader understand how the research encounter may have shaped accounts and interpretations. They should be reported thoughtfully and with appropriate privacy considerations, not added as invented biography merely to fill a checklist.
Some COREQ questions ask whether a procedure took place rather than demanding that it must have taken place. For example, the manuscript may explicitly state that interviews were not repeated or that transcripts were not returned. The assessment should evaluate the transparency of that statement against the actual reporting question. It must not equate every “no” with poor quality or assume that silence proves the procedure was absent. Inspect the missing-detail notes and compare each verdict with the source before deciding that a methodological change is required.
Link analytic claims to the presented material
The analysis domain asks about coders, the coding structure, how themes arose, software where applicable and participant feedback. Findings should clearly present major themes, account for diverse cases or minor themes, and use participant quotations with identifiers. The tool’s supporting quotations come from your submitted manuscript; they are not new participant data. Never use a generated explanation to fill a missing interview extract or attribute a statement to a participant who did not make it.
A quotation matching the manuscript is only a provenance check. It does not establish that a theme is analytically convincing or that contradictory cases were handled well. Read the findings with your qualitative team and preserve the study’s methodological commitments. Use Excerpt for a coding description, abstract or partial findings section; absent reflexivity detail then remains unclear. Before running a full manuscript, confirm that quotations, participant identifiers and table structure survived PDF extraction. Download the result as a discussion aid and revise the official checklist after your own interpretive review.
Choose a reporting checklist
MOOSE 2000 is unavailable while we verify its item list against an accessible authoritative source.
- Reporting Checklist Checker — Review manuscript reporting against an editioned guideline. Get item-by-item findings, verified quotations, locations and missing details for author review.
Frequently asked questions
Does COREQ cover focus groups?
Yes. COREQ covers interviews and focus groups. Report the moderator or interviewer, setting, participant selection and how the discussions were recorded and analyzed.
What counts as a reflexivity example?
“The interviewer had previously treated participants” reports a relationship relevant to interpretation. Report researcher characteristics and assumptions as well; a job title alone is incomplete.
Does mentioning saturation satisfy results reporting?
No. Explain how saturation was considered and support reported themes with participant quotations and identifiers. COREQ suits interviews and focus groups; SRQR addresses broader qualitative designs.
Can I upload unpublished research?
Manuscript text is sent to our backend and OpenAI for assessment. This application does not store manuscript text; OpenAI retention policies apply. Upload only material you are authorized to share with those services. The current manuscript and report remain in this tab until you reload or close it.
Does this guarantee compliance, and why is AGREE II disabled?
No. This is an AI-assisted reporting review, not certification or a study-quality assessment. AGREE II is a guideline appraisal instrument with 23 items, six domains and 1–7 ratings, requiring at least two appraisers. Commercial use is restricted, so its dropdown option is disabled and no substitute or score is generated.
How many manuscripts can I check for free?
This tool includes 1 successful free run per browser. Failed requests and copying or downloading an existing result do not use another run. The unit is one manuscript across all five pages. Rechecking the same normalized text against another checklist is free, subject to the service’s daily request budget; edited manuscript text is a new manuscript.
What happens when I sign up?
Signup opens the AnswerThis app. It does not unlock more runs on this page or transfer your draft. Copy or download your result first.