ObjectiveTo introduce and preliminarily apply a tool for assessing the importance of research questions (Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool, ANZMUSC-RQIT), thereby providing a methodological reference for selecting research questions. MethodsAn overview of the development process and main content of ANZMUSC-RQIT is provided, and an exploratory application of the tool is conducted to evaluate clinical research questions in the field of musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs) within Chinese Medicine (CM). ResultsANZMUSC-RQIT assesses the importance of specific research questions across five dimensions. Currently, clinical research on MSKDs in CM often focuses on the consensus among stakeholders regarding the importance of issues, prioritizes addressing problems that pose a significant burden on patients, and aims to alleviate clinical symptoms as the main intervention goal. The total score of ANZMUSC-RQIT is positively correlated with journal impact but shows no statistically significant relationship with citation frequency. Additionally, national funding support is positively correlated with the RQIT total score of the research question. ConclusionThe development of ANZMUSC-RQIT provides valuable reference and inspiration for selecting future research questions. However, to more effectively assess the importance of CM clinical research questions, there is a pressing need to develop an evaluation tool tailored to the specific characteristics of CM clinical research.
ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the application of qualitative research reporting standards in interdisciplinary knowledge production and to propose more adaptable reflexive use strategies, so as to enhance the transparency, credibility, and knowledge translation value of qualitative research reports. MethodsFrom an interdisciplinary perspective, this study compared four representative reporting standards: COREQ, SRQR, ENTREQ, and JARS-Qual, in terms of their applicable scope, core objectives, item structure, and implicit quality orientations. It analyzed practical issues such as checklist thinking, methodological misalignment, and insufficient interdisciplinary adaptation. Drawing on the concept of value-based reporting frameworks, it introduced reflexive adaptation strategies and demonstrates their application pathways through empirical cases. ResultsThe four reporting standards each had their own emphases, but in interdisciplinary applications they tended to lead to mechanical application, methodological misalignment, and inadequate contextual adaptation. The same checklist item carried different meanings across different epistemological orientations and must be understood in light of research paradigms and disciplinary contexts. The value of reporting standards lied not in providing a universal checklist, but in helping researchers clearly articulate the relationships among research design, data generation, analytical pathways, and interpretation of findings. ConclusionQualitative research reporting standards should adopt a reflexive adaptation strategy. Researchers need to make justified choices, translations, and supplements to the standards based on research questions, methodological traditions, data forms, and disciplinary contexts, forming an application pathway of "retain-translate-supplement". This study advocates that researchers, journal editors, and reviewers use reporting standards in a more open, prudently, and methodologically self-aware manner, thereby achieving a dynamic balance between standardization and methodological diversity.