可以使用生物力学客观基础科学质量评估工具(Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool)对尸体生物力学和实验室研究的质量进行量化评分:BOBQAT 评分。

{"title":"可以使用生物力学客观基础科学质量评估工具(Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool)对尸体生物力学和实验室研究的质量进行量化评分:BOBQAT 评分。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To develop a quality appraisal tool for the assessment of cadaveric biomechanical laboratory and other basic science biomechanical studies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>For item identification and development, a systematic review<span> of the literature was performed. The content validity<span> index (CVI) was used either to include or exclude items. The content validity ratio (CVR) was used to determine content validity. Weighting was performed by each panel member; the final weight was either up- or downgraded to the closest of 5% or 10%. Face validity<span><span> was scored on a Likert scale ranked from 1 to 7. Test-retest reliability was determined using the Fleiss </span>kappa coefficient. </span></span></span></span>Internal consistency<span> was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. Concurrent criterion validity was assessed against the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The final Biomechanics Objective Basic science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) score included 15 items and was shown to be valid, reliable, and consistent. Five items had a CVI of 1.0; 10 items had a CVI of 0.875. For weighting, 5 items received a weight of 10%, and 10 items a weight of 5%. CVR was 1.0 for 6 items and 0.75 for 9 items. For face validity, all items achieved a score above 5. For test-retest reliability, almost-perfect test-retest reliability was observed for 10 items, substantial agreement for 4 items, and moderate agreement for 1 item. For internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to be 0.71. For concurrent criterion validity, Pearson’s product-moment correlation was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.70, <em>P</em> = .0001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Cadaveric biomechanical and laboratory research can be quantitatively scored for quality based on the inclusion of a clear and answerable purpose, demographics, specimen condition, appropriate bone density, reproducible technique, appropriate outcome measures, appropriate loading conditions, appropriate load magnitude, cyclic loading, sample size calculation, proper statistical analysis, results consistent with methods, limitations considered, conclusions based on results, and disclosure of funding and potential conflicts.</p></div><div><h3>Clinical Relevance</h3><p>Study quality assessments are important to evaluate internal and external validity and reliability and to identify methodological flaws and misleading conclusions. The BOBQAT score will help not only in the critical appraisal of cadaveric biomechanical studies but also in guiding the designs of such research endeavors.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cadaveric Biomechanical Laboratory Research Can Be Quantitatively Scored for Quality With the Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool: The BOBQAT Score\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To develop a quality appraisal tool for the assessment of cadaveric biomechanical laboratory and other basic science biomechanical studies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>For item identification and development, a systematic review<span> of the literature was performed. The content validity<span> index (CVI) was used either to include or exclude items. The content validity ratio (CVR) was used to determine content validity. Weighting was performed by each panel member; the final weight was either up- or downgraded to the closest of 5% or 10%. Face validity<span><span> was scored on a Likert scale ranked from 1 to 7. Test-retest reliability was determined using the Fleiss </span>kappa coefficient. </span></span></span></span>Internal consistency<span> was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. Concurrent criterion validity was assessed against the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The final Biomechanics Objective Basic science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) score included 15 items and was shown to be valid, reliable, and consistent. Five items had a CVI of 1.0; 10 items had a CVI of 0.875. For weighting, 5 items received a weight of 10%, and 10 items a weight of 5%. CVR was 1.0 for 6 items and 0.75 for 9 items. For face validity, all items achieved a score above 5. For test-retest reliability, almost-perfect test-retest reliability was observed for 10 items, substantial agreement for 4 items, and moderate agreement for 1 item. For internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to be 0.71. For concurrent criterion validity, Pearson’s product-moment correlation was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.70, <em>P</em> = .0001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Cadaveric biomechanical and laboratory research can be quantitatively scored for quality based on the inclusion of a clear and answerable purpose, demographics, specimen condition, appropriate bone density, reproducible technique, appropriate outcome measures, appropriate loading conditions, appropriate load magnitude, cyclic loading, sample size calculation, proper statistical analysis, results consistent with methods, limitations considered, conclusions based on results, and disclosure of funding and potential conflicts.</p></div><div><h3>Clinical Relevance</h3><p>Study quality assessments are important to evaluate internal and external validity and reliability and to identify methodological flaws and misleading conclusions. The BOBQAT score will help not only in the critical appraisal of cadaveric biomechanical studies but also in guiding the designs of such research endeavors.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806324000033\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806324000033","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在开发一种质量评估工具,用于评估尸体生物力学实验室和其他基础科学生物力学研究:为了确定/开发项目,首先对文献进行了系统性回顾。采用内容效度指数(CVI)来纳入或排除项目。内容效度比(CVR)用于确定内容效度。每位专家组成员进行加权;最终权重向上或向下调整至最接近的 5%或 10%。表面效度采用 1-7 级李克特量表评分。重测可靠性采用弗莱斯卡帕系数确定。内部一致性采用 Cronbach's alpha 进行评估。根据 QUACS 量表评估了并行标准效度:结果:BOBQAT 的最终评分包括 15 个项目,结果显示其有效、可靠且一致。五个项目的 CVI 值为 1.0;十个项目的 CVI 值为 0.875。权重方面,五个项目的权重为 10%,十个项目的权重为 5%。六个项目的 CVR 为 1.0,九个项目的 CVR 为 0.75。在面效度方面,所有项目的得分都超过了 5 分。在重测信度方面,10 个项目的重测信度接近完美,4 个项目的重测信度基本一致,1 个项目的重测信度中等。内部一致性方面,计算得出 Cronbach's alpha 为 0.71。在并行标准效度方面,皮尔逊乘积矩相关性为 0.56 (95% CI 0.38-0.70, p=0.0001):尸体生物力学研究和实验室研究的质量可根据以下方面进行量化评分:明确和可回答的目的、人口统计学、标本条件、适当的骨密度、可重复的技术、适当的结果测量、适当的加载条件、适当的负荷大小、循环加载、样本量计算、适当的统计分析、与方法一致的结果、考虑的局限性、基于结果的结论以及资金和潜在冲突的披露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Cadaveric Biomechanical Laboratory Research Can Be Quantitatively Scored for Quality With the Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool: The BOBQAT Score

Purpose

To develop a quality appraisal tool for the assessment of cadaveric biomechanical laboratory and other basic science biomechanical studies.

Methods

For item identification and development, a systematic review of the literature was performed. The content validity index (CVI) was used either to include or exclude items. The content validity ratio (CVR) was used to determine content validity. Weighting was performed by each panel member; the final weight was either up- or downgraded to the closest of 5% or 10%. Face validity was scored on a Likert scale ranked from 1 to 7. Test-retest reliability was determined using the Fleiss kappa coefficient. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. Concurrent criterion validity was assessed against the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale.

Results

The final Biomechanics Objective Basic science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT) score included 15 items and was shown to be valid, reliable, and consistent. Five items had a CVI of 1.0; 10 items had a CVI of 0.875. For weighting, 5 items received a weight of 10%, and 10 items a weight of 5%. CVR was 1.0 for 6 items and 0.75 for 9 items. For face validity, all items achieved a score above 5. For test-retest reliability, almost-perfect test-retest reliability was observed for 10 items, substantial agreement for 4 items, and moderate agreement for 1 item. For internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to be 0.71. For concurrent criterion validity, Pearson’s product-moment correlation was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.70, P = .0001).

Conclusions

Cadaveric biomechanical and laboratory research can be quantitatively scored for quality based on the inclusion of a clear and answerable purpose, demographics, specimen condition, appropriate bone density, reproducible technique, appropriate outcome measures, appropriate loading conditions, appropriate load magnitude, cyclic loading, sample size calculation, proper statistical analysis, results consistent with methods, limitations considered, conclusions based on results, and disclosure of funding and potential conflicts.

Clinical Relevance

Study quality assessments are important to evaluate internal and external validity and reliability and to identify methodological flaws and misleading conclusions. The BOBQAT score will help not only in the critical appraisal of cadaveric biomechanical studies but also in guiding the designs of such research endeavors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopic Bone Grafting Using Suspensory Fixation for Anterior Glenohumeral Fixation with Bone Loss May Supersede Latarjet Using Coracoid Transfer. Editorial Commentary: In Cases of Cam Over-resection and Irreparable Hip Labral Tear Requiring Revision, Acetabular Circumferential Labral Reconstruction with Larger Graft Width Is Indicated. Editorial Commentary: Repair of Radial Meniscus Tears. Editorial Commentary:Varus Recurrence After Medial Opening Wedge HTO. Introducing Foundations of Arthroscopy Techniques.
×
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