使用工具评估主要神经外科期刊上主要研究的方法质量:评论综述。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Clinical Neuroscience Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2024.110916
Alexander J. Savage , Christopher G. Shafik , Simon A. Savage , Jackson D. Catalano , Jin W. Tee , Hamed Akhlaghi , Rana S. Dhillon , Tom J. O’Donohoe
{"title":"使用工具评估主要神经外科期刊上主要研究的方法质量:评论综述。","authors":"Alexander J. Savage ,&nbsp;Christopher G. Shafik ,&nbsp;Simon A. Savage ,&nbsp;Jackson D. Catalano ,&nbsp;Jin W. Tee ,&nbsp;Hamed Akhlaghi ,&nbsp;Rana S. Dhillon ,&nbsp;Tom J. O’Donohoe","doi":"10.1016/j.jocn.2024.110916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Systematic reviews (SRs) and <em>meta</em>-analyses (MAs) require a comprehensive and reproducible strategy to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. This research-on-research study evaluated the methods used to assess research quality by SRs and MAs published in leading neurosurgical journals, and identified factors associated with the publication of a comprehensive and reproducible assessment. We systematically surveyed SRs published in the 10 leading neurosurgical journals between 01/11/2019 and 31/12/2021. PubMed was used to search the MEDLINE database, which was supplemented by individual journal searches. Included SRs were assessed using a standardised data extraction tool. Descriptive statistics were utilised to identify factors associated with methodological and reporting quality of the tool-based quality assessment. A total of 564 SRs were included in the analysis. 326 (57.80%) included MAs, 165 (29.26%) included at least one Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and 29 (5.14%) included only RCTs. Scales were the most commonly used tool for methodological quality assessment (32.45%), followed by domain-based tools (24.82%) and checklists (9.93%). The number of included studies was inversely associated with multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. A positive association was observed between the number of included patients and multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. We established that the methodological and reporting quality of tool-based quality assessment requires improvement. This issue is particularly pertinent for SRs limited to non-randomised studies, which account for the vast majority of neurosurgical SRs. We recommend the use of domain-based tools for methodological quality assessment as these provide a more nuanced assessment of methodological quality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15487,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","volume":"130 ","pages":"Article 110916"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of tools for assessing the methodological quality of primary research in leading neurosurgical journals: A review of reviews\",\"authors\":\"Alexander J. Savage ,&nbsp;Christopher G. Shafik ,&nbsp;Simon A. Savage ,&nbsp;Jackson D. Catalano ,&nbsp;Jin W. Tee ,&nbsp;Hamed Akhlaghi ,&nbsp;Rana S. Dhillon ,&nbsp;Tom J. O’Donohoe\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jocn.2024.110916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Systematic reviews (SRs) and <em>meta</em>-analyses (MAs) require a comprehensive and reproducible strategy to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. This research-on-research study evaluated the methods used to assess research quality by SRs and MAs published in leading neurosurgical journals, and identified factors associated with the publication of a comprehensive and reproducible assessment. We systematically surveyed SRs published in the 10 leading neurosurgical journals between 01/11/2019 and 31/12/2021. PubMed was used to search the MEDLINE database, which was supplemented by individual journal searches. Included SRs were assessed using a standardised data extraction tool. Descriptive statistics were utilised to identify factors associated with methodological and reporting quality of the tool-based quality assessment. A total of 564 SRs were included in the analysis. 326 (57.80%) included MAs, 165 (29.26%) included at least one Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and 29 (5.14%) included only RCTs. Scales were the most commonly used tool for methodological quality assessment (32.45%), followed by domain-based tools (24.82%) and checklists (9.93%). The number of included studies was inversely associated with multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. A positive association was observed between the number of included patients and multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. We established that the methodological and reporting quality of tool-based quality assessment requires improvement. This issue is particularly pertinent for SRs limited to non-randomised studies, which account for the vast majority of neurosurgical SRs. We recommend the use of domain-based tools for methodological quality assessment as these provide a more nuanced assessment of methodological quality.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"130 \",\"pages\":\"Article 110916\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967586824004557\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967586824004557","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

系统综述(SR)和荟萃分析(MA)需要一种全面、可重复的策略来评估纳入研究的方法学质量。这项 "研究对研究 "的研究评估了主要神经外科期刊上发表的系统综述和荟萃分析用于评估研究质量的方法,并确定了与发表全面且可重复的评估相关的因素。我们系统调查了2019年11月1日至2021年12月31日期间在10种主要神经外科期刊上发表的SR。我们使用 PubMed 对 MEDLINE 数据库进行了检索,并对个别期刊进行了补充检索。使用标准化数据提取工具对纳入的研究报告进行评估。利用描述性统计来确定与基于工具的质量评估的方法和报告质量相关的因素。共有 564 份报告被纳入分析。其中 326 份(57.80%)包含了 MA,165 份(29.26%)包含了至少一项随机对照试验 (RCT),29 份(5.14%)仅包含了 RCT。量表是最常用的方法学质量评估工具(32.45%),其次是基于领域的工具(24.82%)和核对表(9.93%)。纳入研究的数量与多种方法质量评估指标成反比。纳入的患者人数与多个方法学质量评估指标之间呈正相关。我们发现,基于工具的质量评估的方法和报告质量需要改进。这个问题对于仅限于非随机研究的SR尤为重要,而神经外科SR中绝大多数都是非随机研究。我们建议使用基于领域的工具进行方法学质量评估,因为这些工具能提供更细致的方法学质量评估。
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
Use of tools for assessing the methodological quality of primary research in leading neurosurgical journals: A review of reviews
Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) require a comprehensive and reproducible strategy to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. This research-on-research study evaluated the methods used to assess research quality by SRs and MAs published in leading neurosurgical journals, and identified factors associated with the publication of a comprehensive and reproducible assessment. We systematically surveyed SRs published in the 10 leading neurosurgical journals between 01/11/2019 and 31/12/2021. PubMed was used to search the MEDLINE database, which was supplemented by individual journal searches. Included SRs were assessed using a standardised data extraction tool. Descriptive statistics were utilised to identify factors associated with methodological and reporting quality of the tool-based quality assessment. A total of 564 SRs were included in the analysis. 326 (57.80%) included MAs, 165 (29.26%) included at least one Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and 29 (5.14%) included only RCTs. Scales were the most commonly used tool for methodological quality assessment (32.45%), followed by domain-based tools (24.82%) and checklists (9.93%). The number of included studies was inversely associated with multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. A positive association was observed between the number of included patients and multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. We established that the methodological and reporting quality of tool-based quality assessment requires improvement. This issue is particularly pertinent for SRs limited to non-randomised studies, which account for the vast majority of neurosurgical SRs. We recommend the use of domain-based tools for methodological quality assessment as these provide a more nuanced assessment of methodological quality.
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
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
402
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: This International journal, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, publishes articles on clinical neurosurgery and neurology and the related neurosciences such as neuro-pathology, neuro-radiology, neuro-ophthalmology and neuro-physiology. The journal has a broad International perspective, and emphasises the advances occurring in Asia, the Pacific Rim region, Europe and North America. The Journal acts as a focus for publication of major clinical and laboratory research, as well as publishing solicited manuscripts on specific subjects from experts, case reports and other information of interest to clinicians working in the clinical neurosciences.
期刊最新文献
White matter correlates of gait and balance dysfunction in essential tremor patients. Hemorrhagic transformation after thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke: Accuracy and improvement of existing predictive models in a rural population of the Midwest Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of primary spinal cord glioblastomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis CT perfusion derived relative cerebral blood volume < 42 % is negatively associated with poor functional outcomes at discharge in anterior circulation large vessel occlusion stroke Customized GPT model largely increases surgery decision accuracy for pharmaco-resistant epilepsy
×
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