scholarly journals Analysis of the Methodologic Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses in Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

2012 ◽  
Vol s1 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie N. Hanna
Keyword(s):  
Pain Medicine ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Methodologic Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Reporting Quality in Math Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities

2021 ◽  
pp. 001440292110508
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson ◽  
Soyoung Park ◽  
Tasia Brafford ◽  
Nicole A. Heller ◽  
Angela R. Crawford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Mathematics Interventions ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Mathematics Intervention ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Researchers and practitioners alike often look to meta-analyses to identify effective practices to use with students with disabilities. The number of meta-analyses in special education has also expanded in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of reporting in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. We applied 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. to 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2020. Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in quality indicator scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers.

scholarly journals Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Vindrola-Padros ◽  
Bruno Vindrola-Padros
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Healthcare Organisation ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundThe ability to capture the complexities of healthcare practices and the quick turnaround of findings make rapid ethnographies appealing to the healthcare sector, where changing organisational climates and priorities require actionable findings at strategic time points. Despite methodological advancement, there continue to be challenges in the implementation of rapid ethnographies concerning sampling, the interpretation of findings and management of field research. The purpose of this review was to explore the benefits and challenges of using rapid ethnographies to inform healthcare organisation and delivery and identify areas that require improvement.MethodsThis was a systematic review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the articles. We developed the search strategy using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Settingframework and searched for peer-reviewed articles in MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, Web of Science and ProQuest Central. We included articles that reported findings from rapid ethnographies in healthcare contexts or addressing issues related to health service use.Results26 articles were included in the review. We found an increase in the use of rapid ethnographies in the last 2‰years. We found variability in terminology and developed a typology to clarify conceptual differences. The studies generated findings that could be used to inform policy and practice. The main limitations of the studies were: the poor quality of reporting of study designs, mainly data analysis methods, and lack of reflexivity.ConclusionsRapid ethnographies have the potential to generate findings that can inform changes in healthcare practices in a timely manner, but greater attention needs to be paid to the reflexive interpretation of findings and the description of research methods.Trial registration numberCRD42017065874.

scholarly journals The Quality of Reporting Methods and Results in Network Meta-Analyses: An Overview of Reviews and Suggestions for Improvement

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e92508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Hutton ◽  
Georgia Salanti ◽  
Anna Chaimani ◽  
Deborah M. Caldwell ◽  
Chris Schmid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Overview Of Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals A Framework to Assess the Quality of Non-traditional Articles in the Field of Disaster Response and Management

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 147-151
Author(s):  
Mary Hall ◽  
Chris Cartwright ◽  
Andrew C. K. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractObjectiveWhile carrying out a scoping review of earthquake response, we found that there is no universal standardized approach for assessing the quality of disaster evidence, much of which is variable or not peer reviewed. With the lack of a framework to ascertain the value and validity of this literature, there is a danger that valuable insights may be lost. We propose a theoretical framework that may, with further validation, address this gap.MethodsExisting frameworks – quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUORUM), meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE), the Cochrane assessment of bias, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists, strengthening the reporting of observation studies in epidemiology (STROBE), and consensus guidelines on reports of field interventions in disasters and emergencies (CONFIDE)–were analyzed to identify key domains of quality. Supporting statements, based on these existing frameworks were developed for each domain to form an overall theoretical framework of quality. This was piloted on a data set of publications from a separate scoping review.ResultsFour domains of quality were identified: robustness, generalizability, added value, and ethics with 11 scored, supporting statements. Although 73 out of 111 papers (66%) scored below 70%, a sizeable portion (34%) scored higher.ConclusionOur theoretical framework presents, for debate and further validation, a method of assessing the quality of non-traditional studies and thus supporting the best available evidence approach to disaster response. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:147–151)

scholarly journals Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (11) ◽  
pp. 1456-1466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Monica Gasparini ◽  
Michela Agostini ◽  
Greta Castellini ◽  
Davide Corbetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Item Data ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals. Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively. Results Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13–22 [48%–82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review. Conclusions This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments and Interventions

Dermatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Vanessa Lin ◽  
Raahi Patel ◽  
Alexis Wirtz ◽  
Deepika Mannem ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atopic Dermatitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Spin – the misrepresentation of a study’s results – has been identified in abstracts of studies focused on a variety of disorders from multiple fields of medicine. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> This study’s primary objective was to evaluate the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of atopic dermatitis for the nine most severe forms of spin. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis therapies. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Our searches retrieved 2,456 studies, of which 113 were included for data extraction. Spin was found in 74.3% of our included studies (84/113). Spin type 6 occurred most frequently (68/113, 60.2%). Spin types 1, 2, and 9 were not identified. All industry-funded systematic reviews contained spin in their abstract. The presence of spin was not associated with any specific study characteristics, including the methodological quality of the study. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Severe forms of spin were found in the majority of abstracts for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis treatments. Steps should be taken to prevent spin to improve the quality of reporting in abstracts.

scholarly journals Special Education Math Interventions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Mathematics Intervention ◽  
Screening Criteria ◽  
Math Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Quality

The purpose of document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses focused on participants with or at-risk of disabilities. The author drafted this coding protocol based on the meta-analysis quality indicators recommended by Talbott et al. (2018, pp. 248–249); specifically, the author considered the variables presented in Table 1 of Talbott et al. and supplemented the information so that the variables and definitions were specific to the purpose of this systematic review. We coded each meta-analysis for 53 variables across eight categories, including: Quality of Clear Research Questions, Quality of Eligibility Criteria, Quality of Search Procedures, Quality of Screening Criteria, Quality of Coding Procedures, Quality of Research Participants and Contexts, Quality of Data Analysis Plan, and Quality of Reporting Results. The mean interrater reliability across all codes using this protocol was 87.8% (range across categories = 74% –100%).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document