Evaluation of method of cohort research articles using Q-coh assessment tool

Praveena Babu, Srividya A., Suresh T.
{"title":"Evaluation of method of cohort research articles using Q-coh assessment tool","authors":"Praveena Babu, Srividya A., Suresh T.","doi":"10.18203/2349-3259.ijct20233172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Clinical and evidence-based information is very important in the field of clinical sciences including speech and hearing sciences. More and More professionals are resorting to published articles for knowledge on assessment and intervention that are evidence based. Therefore, there is a need of standard evaluation methods for each type of research that is published. The aim of the study is to investigate the quality of the cohort research articles by using the assessment tool Q-coh and thereby checking the reliability of the assessment tool. Methods: The tool Q-coh developed by Jarde et al with the aim to screen the methodological quality of the primary studies with a cohort design was taken for quality assessment of cohort research articles. Q-Coh consists of 26 items and 7 inferences. Assessment was carried out by few reviewers who were blinded to the classification of quality and based on the evaluation received from the reviewers the quality of the articles were determined. Agreement analysis was done to check the proportion of agreement between the raters and reliability of the tool respectively. Results: The research findings indicate that there is a fair to substantial agreement between the raters. Further, the quality of the articles was determined and classified into the class of acceptable and good quality. Conclusions: The present study was conducted to check if the checklist Q-coh is applicable to assess the methodological quality of cohort research studies. The outcomes of the study indicate that the tool is reliable.","PeriodicalId":13787,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Trials","volume":"18 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-3259.ijct20233172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical and evidence-based information is very important in the field of clinical sciences including speech and hearing sciences. More and More professionals are resorting to published articles for knowledge on assessment and intervention that are evidence based. Therefore, there is a need of standard evaluation methods for each type of research that is published. The aim of the study is to investigate the quality of the cohort research articles by using the assessment tool Q-coh and thereby checking the reliability of the assessment tool. Methods: The tool Q-coh developed by Jarde et al with the aim to screen the methodological quality of the primary studies with a cohort design was taken for quality assessment of cohort research articles. Q-Coh consists of 26 items and 7 inferences. Assessment was carried out by few reviewers who were blinded to the classification of quality and based on the evaluation received from the reviewers the quality of the articles were determined. Agreement analysis was done to check the proportion of agreement between the raters and reliability of the tool respectively. Results: The research findings indicate that there is a fair to substantial agreement between the raters. Further, the quality of the articles was determined and classified into the class of acceptable and good quality. Conclusions: The present study was conducted to check if the checklist Q-coh is applicable to assess the methodological quality of cohort research studies. The outcomes of the study indicate that the tool is reliable.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用Q-coh评价工具评价队列研究文章的方法
背景:临床和循证信息在包括言语和听力科学在内的临床科学领域非常重要。越来越多的专业人士正在通过发表的文章来获取基于证据的评估和干预方面的知识。因此,对于每一类已发表的研究都需要一个标准的评价方法。本研究的目的是通过使用评估工具Q-coh来调查队列研究文章的质量,从而检查评估工具的可靠性。方法:采用Jarde等人开发的Q-coh工具对队列研究文章进行质量评估,该工具旨在筛选具有队列设计的初级研究的方法学质量。Q-Coh由26个题项和7个推论组成。评估由少数不了解质量分类的审稿人进行,并根据审稿人的评价来确定文章的质量。进行一致性分析,分别检验评价者之间的一致性比例和工具的可靠性。结果:研究结果表明,评分者之间存在公平到实质性的一致。此外,文章的质量被确定并归类为可接受和良好的质量。结论:本研究旨在检验Q-coh检查表是否适用于评估队列研究的方法学质量。研究结果表明,该工具是可靠的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The effectiveness of video feedback intervention on mother-infant interactional quality for women with perinatal mental health illnesses: protocol for a pilot randomised control trial Perioperative management of hyperglycemic patients undergoing surgery: an observational cross sectional study in a tertiary care hospital Perception of decentralized clinical trials and home nursing in oncology clinical research: insights from a survey of clinical research professionals across experimental sites A randomized clinical study comparing Trupler skin stapler and Trulon polyamide suture in post-surgical skin closure during orthopaedic and open abdominal surgeries Immediate effects of bandha hasta utthanasana on cerebral hemodynamics in healthy individuals: a protocol for randomized controlled trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1