Bmc Med Res Methodol
-
Bmc Med Res Methodol · Jan 2008
Examining intra-rater and inter-rater response agreement: a medical chart abstraction study of a community-based asthma care program.
To assess the intra- and inter-rater agreement of chart abstractors from multiple sites involved in the evaluation of an Asthma Care Program (ACP). ⋯ Though collected by multiple abstractors, the results show high sensitivity and specificity and substantial to excellent inter- and intra-rater agreement, assuring confidence in the use of chart abstraction for evaluating the ACP.
-
Bmc Med Res Methodol · Jan 2008
Comparative StudyIndustry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions.
Studies have shown that industry-sponsored meta-analyses of drugs lack scientific rigour and have biased conclusions. However, these studies have been restricted to certain medical specialities. We compared all industry-supported meta-analyses of drug-drug comparisons with those without industry support. ⋯ Transparency is essential for readers to make their own judgment about medical interventions guided by the results of meta-analyses. We found that industry-supported meta-analyses are less transparent than meta-analyses with non-profit support or no support.
-
Bmc Med Res Methodol · Nov 2007
Do health technology assessments comply with QUOROM diagram guidance? An empirical study.
The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement provides guidance for improving the quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To make the process of study selection transparent it recommends "a flow diagram providing information about the number of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for excluding them". We undertook an empirical study to identify the extent of compliance in the UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. ⋯ Compliance with the recommendations of the QUOROM statement is not universal in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Flow diagrams make the conduct of study selection transparent only if the relationship between citations and studies is clearly expressed. Reviewers should understand what they are counting: citations, papers, studies and trials are fundamentally different concepts which should not be confused in a diagram.
-
Bmc Med Res Methodol · Sep 2007
Optimising reproductive and child health outcomes by building evidence-based research and practice in South East Asia (SEA-ORCHID): study protocol.
Disorders related to pregnancy and childbirth are a major health issue in South East Asia. They represent one of the biggest health risk differentials between the developed and developing world. Our broad research question is: Can the health of mothers and babies in Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia be improved by increasing the local capacity for the synthesis of research, implementation of effective interventions, and identification of gaps in knowledge needing further research? ⋯ The SEA-ORCHID project was intended to improve care during pregnancy and the perinatal period of mothers and their babies in South East Asia. The possible benefits extend beyond this however, as at the end of this project there is hoped to be an existing network of South East Asian researchers and health care providers with the capacity to generalise this model to other health priority areas. It is anticipated that this project facilitate ongoing development of evidence-based practice and policy in South East Asia through attracting long-term funding, expansion into other hospitals and community-based care and the establishment of nodes in other countries.
-
Bmc Med Res Methodol · Jan 2007
Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
Our objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus. ⋯ A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use.