为临床建议提供信息的定性研究证据的方法学质量评估和分级指南综述:系统性文献综述。

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY RMD Open Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1136/rmdopen-2023-004032
Mandeep Sekhon, Annette de Thurah, George E Fragoulis, Jan Schoones, Tanja A Stamm, Theodora P M Vliet Vlieland, Bente Appel Esbensen, Heidi Lempp, Lindsay Bearne, Marios Kouloumas, Polina Pchelnikova, Thijs Willem Swinnen, Chris Blunt, Ricardo J O Ferreira, Loreto Carmona, Elena Nikiphorou
{"title":"为临床建议提供信息的定性研究证据的方法学质量评估和分级指南综述:系统性文献综述。","authors":"Mandeep Sekhon, Annette de Thurah, George E Fragoulis, Jan Schoones, Tanja A Stamm, Theodora P M Vliet Vlieland, Bente Appel Esbensen, Heidi Lempp, Lindsay Bearne, Marios Kouloumas, Polina Pchelnikova, Thijs Willem Swinnen, Chris Blunt, Ricardo J O Ferreira, Loreto Carmona, Elena Nikiphorou","doi":"10.1136/rmdopen-2023-004032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To understand (1) what guidance exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research; (2) what methods exist to grade levels of evidence from qualitative research to inform recommendations within European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE and PsycINFO, from inception to 23 October 2020. Eligible studies included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: (1) development; (2) application of validated tools (eg, checklists); (3) guidance on assessing methodological quality of qualitative research and (4) guidance on grading levels of qualitative evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key similarities between included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 9073 records retrieved, 51 went through to full-manuscript review, with 15 selected for inclusion. Six articles described methodological tools to assess the quality of qualitative research. The tools evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and analysis. Seven articles described one approach, focusing on four key components to determine how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research. Two articles focused on grading levels of clinical recommendations based on qualitative evidence; one described a qualitative evidence hierarchy, and another a research pyramid.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a lack of consensus on the use of tools, checklists and approaches suitable for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research and the grading of qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. This work is expected to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative evidence in the process of developing recommendations at EULAR level.</p>","PeriodicalId":21396,"journal":{"name":"RMD Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11184179/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Synthesis of guidance available for assessing methodological quality and grading of evidence from qualitative research to inform clinical recommendations: a systematic literature review.\",\"authors\":\"Mandeep Sekhon, Annette de Thurah, George E Fragoulis, Jan Schoones, Tanja A Stamm, Theodora P M Vliet Vlieland, Bente Appel Esbensen, Heidi Lempp, Lindsay Bearne, Marios Kouloumas, Polina Pchelnikova, Thijs Willem Swinnen, Chris Blunt, Ricardo J O Ferreira, Loreto Carmona, Elena Nikiphorou\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/rmdopen-2023-004032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To understand (1) what guidance exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research; (2) what methods exist to grade levels of evidence from qualitative research to inform recommendations within European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE and PsycINFO, from inception to 23 October 2020. Eligible studies included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: (1) development; (2) application of validated tools (eg, checklists); (3) guidance on assessing methodological quality of qualitative research and (4) guidance on grading levels of qualitative evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key similarities between included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 9073 records retrieved, 51 went through to full-manuscript review, with 15 selected for inclusion. Six articles described methodological tools to assess the quality of qualitative research. The tools evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and analysis. Seven articles described one approach, focusing on four key components to determine how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research. Two articles focused on grading levels of clinical recommendations based on qualitative evidence; one described a qualitative evidence hierarchy, and another a research pyramid.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a lack of consensus on the use of tools, checklists and approaches suitable for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research and the grading of qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. This work is expected to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative evidence in the process of developing recommendations at EULAR level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RMD Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11184179/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RMD Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2023-004032\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RMD Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2023-004032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:了解(1)现有哪些指南可用于评估定性研究的方法学质量;(2)现有哪些方法可对定性研究的证据等级进行分级,从而为欧洲风湿病学协会联盟(EULAR)的建议提供依据:在多个数据库(包括 PubMed/Medline、EMBASE、Web of Science、COCHRANE 和 PsycINFO)中进行了系统的文献综述,时间从开始到 2020 年 10 月 23 日。符合条件的研究包括描述以下内容的英文主要文章和指南文件:(1) 开发;(2) 应用验证工具(如核对表);(3) 定性研究方法质量评估指南;(4) 定性证据分级指南。我们进行了叙述性综合,以确定所纳入研究之间的主要相似之处:在检索到的 9073 条记录中,有 51 条通过了全文审稿,其中 15 条被选中纳入。六篇文章介绍了评估定性研究质量的方法工具。这些工具对研究设计、招募、伦理严谨性、数据收集和分析进行了评估。七篇文章介绍了一种方法,重点关注四个关键要素,以确定对定性研究系统性综述结果的信任度。两篇文章侧重于根据定性证据对临床建议进行分级;一篇文章描述了定性证据等级,另一篇文章描述了研究金字塔:结论:对于使用何种工具、清单和方法来评估定性研究的方法学质量以及对定性证据进行分级,从而为临床实践提供信息,目前还缺乏共识。这项工作有望促进将定性证据纳入 EULAR 一级的建议制定过程。
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
Synthesis of guidance available for assessing methodological quality and grading of evidence from qualitative research to inform clinical recommendations: a systematic literature review.

Objective: To understand (1) what guidance exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research; (2) what methods exist to grade levels of evidence from qualitative research to inform recommendations within European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE and PsycINFO, from inception to 23 October 2020. Eligible studies included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: (1) development; (2) application of validated tools (eg, checklists); (3) guidance on assessing methodological quality of qualitative research and (4) guidance on grading levels of qualitative evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key similarities between included studies.

Results: Of 9073 records retrieved, 51 went through to full-manuscript review, with 15 selected for inclusion. Six articles described methodological tools to assess the quality of qualitative research. The tools evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and analysis. Seven articles described one approach, focusing on four key components to determine how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research. Two articles focused on grading levels of clinical recommendations based on qualitative evidence; one described a qualitative evidence hierarchy, and another a research pyramid.

Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus on the use of tools, checklists and approaches suitable for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research and the grading of qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. This work is expected to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative evidence in the process of developing recommendations at EULAR level.

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
RMD Open
RMD Open RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
205
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: RMD Open publishes high quality peer-reviewed original research covering the full spectrum of musculoskeletal disorders, rheumatism and connective tissue diseases, including osteoporosis, spine and rehabilitation. Clinical and epidemiological research, basic and translational medicine, interesting clinical cases, and smaller studies that add to the literature are all considered.
期刊最新文献
Agreement between patient-reported flares and clinically significant flare status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission: data from the ARCTIC REWIND trials. Development of a multivariable prediction model for progression of systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease. Inflammatory biomarkers predicting long-term remission and active disease in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a population-based study of the Nordic JIA cohort. Comparison of established and preliminarily proposed ASAS MRI working group cut-offs for inflammatory MRI lesions in the sacroiliac joints in radiographic and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Persistence of power Doppler ultrasonography-detected synovitis over 1 year of follow-up predicts poor prognosis in rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission: the SONORE prospective longitudinal study
×
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