下肢矫形器领域定性证据的方法学和报告质量:系统综述。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Assistive Technology Pub Date : 2023-11-02 Epub Date: 2023-05-02 DOI:10.1080/10400435.2023.2199056
Saeed Shahabi, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani, Mostafa Hoseeinabadi, Seyed Taghi Heydari
{"title":"下肢矫形器领域定性证据的方法学和报告质量:系统综述。","authors":"Saeed Shahabi,&nbsp;Kamran Bagheri Lankarani,&nbsp;Mostafa Hoseeinabadi,&nbsp;Seyed Taghi Heydari","doi":"10.1080/10400435.2023.2199056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of qualitative studies conducted in the field of lower limb orthoses (LLOs). The following electronic databases were searched from inception to 2022: PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, WoS, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and RehabData. Two authors independently screened and selected the potential studies. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programs qualitative checklist. In addition, the reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) tool. The mean methodological quality score of included studies was 8 (from min = 2 to max = 9.5), and most of the studies had a score of more than 7.5. However, SRQR findings revealed that the overall reporting quality of included studies was not desirable in that the mean score was about 15.44 (from min = 6 to max = 19.5) out of 21. In total, the methodological quality of qualitative studies published in the field of LLOs was moderate. Further, the adherence of these studies to available reporting guidelines was unsatisfactory. As a result, when designing, performing, and reporting qualitative investigations, authors should pay more attention to these criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":51568,"journal":{"name":"Assistive Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological and reporting quality of qualitative evidence in the field of lower limb orthoses: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Saeed Shahabi,&nbsp;Kamran Bagheri Lankarani,&nbsp;Mostafa Hoseeinabadi,&nbsp;Seyed Taghi Heydari\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10400435.2023.2199056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of qualitative studies conducted in the field of lower limb orthoses (LLOs). The following electronic databases were searched from inception to 2022: PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, WoS, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and RehabData. Two authors independently screened and selected the potential studies. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programs qualitative checklist. In addition, the reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) tool. The mean methodological quality score of included studies was 8 (from min = 2 to max = 9.5), and most of the studies had a score of more than 7.5. However, SRQR findings revealed that the overall reporting quality of included studies was not desirable in that the mean score was about 15.44 (from min = 6 to max = 19.5) out of 21. In total, the methodological quality of qualitative studies published in the field of LLOs was moderate. Further, the adherence of these studies to available reporting guidelines was unsatisfactory. As a result, when designing, performing, and reporting qualitative investigations, authors should pay more attention to these criteria.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assistive Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assistive Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2023.2199056\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2023.2199056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在评估在下肢矫形器(LLOs)领域进行的定性研究的方法和报告质量。从成立到2022年,搜索了以下电子数据库:PubMed、Scopus、ProQuest、WoS、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中央登记册和RehabData。两位作者对潜在研究进行了独立筛选。纳入研究的方法学质量使用关键评估技能项目定性检查表进行评估。此外,纳入研究的报告质量使用定性研究报告标准(SRQR)工具进行评估。纳入研究的平均方法学质量分数为8(从min = 2至最大值 = 9.5),并且大多数研究的得分超过7.5。然而,SRQR的研究结果显示,纳入研究的总体报告质量并不理想,因为平均得分约为15.44(从 = 6至最大值 = 19.5)。总之,LLOs领域发表的定性研究的方法学质量是中等的。此外,这些研究对现有报告准则的遵守情况令人不满意。因此,在设计、执行和报告定性调查时,作者应更多地注意这些标准。
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
Methodological and reporting quality of qualitative evidence in the field of lower limb orthoses: a systematic review.

This study aimed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of qualitative studies conducted in the field of lower limb orthoses (LLOs). The following electronic databases were searched from inception to 2022: PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, WoS, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and RehabData. Two authors independently screened and selected the potential studies. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programs qualitative checklist. In addition, the reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) tool. The mean methodological quality score of included studies was 8 (from min = 2 to max = 9.5), and most of the studies had a score of more than 7.5. However, SRQR findings revealed that the overall reporting quality of included studies was not desirable in that the mean score was about 15.44 (from min = 6 to max = 19.5) out of 21. In total, the methodological quality of qualitative studies published in the field of LLOs was moderate. Further, the adherence of these studies to available reporting guidelines was unsatisfactory. As a result, when designing, performing, and reporting qualitative investigations, authors should pay more attention to these criteria.

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
Assistive Technology
Assistive Technology REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Assistive Technology is an applied, scientific publication in the multi-disciplinary field of technology for people with disabilities. The journal"s purpose is to foster communication among individuals working in all aspects of the assistive technology arena including researchers, developers, clinicians, educators and consumers. The journal will consider papers from all assistive technology applications. Only original papers will be accepted. Technical notes describing preliminary techniques, procedures, or findings of original scientific research may also be submitted. Letters to the Editor are welcome. Books for review may be sent to authors or publisher.
期刊最新文献
Addressing visual impairments: Essential software requirements for image caption solutions. Development and preliminary evaluation of a grid design application for adults and children using scanning and bci-based augmentative and alternative communication. Technology-assisted instruction with teacher prompts on fraction multiplication word problems: A single-case design with visual analysis and Bayesian multilevel modeling. Program evaluation and healthcare process improvement focused on complex wheelchair procurement. RESNA and CTF position on the application of supported standing devices: Current state of the literature.
×
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