Reporting methodological search filter performance comparisons : a literature review

© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal.Peer reviewedPostprin

Systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for foot and ankle in rheumatoid arthritis

Background Foot problems and pain are common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Patient-reported outcome measures provide a standardized method of capturing patients’ perspectives of their functional status and wellbeing. There are many instruments specific to people with feet affected by rheumatoid arthritis but knowledge of their psychometric validation or methodological quality is lacking Objectives To identify patient-reported outcome measures specific to the foot and ankle and rheumatoid arthritis and investigate their methodological quality and psychometric properties Design Systematic review. Data source : A search was conducted for psychometric or validation studies on patient-reported outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis published in different languages, by examining the Pubmed; Scopus, CINAHL; PEDro and Google Scholar databases. Review methods . The systematic review performed was based on the following inclusion criteria: psychometric or clinimetric validation studies on patient-reported outcomes specific to the foot and ankle that included patients with Rheumatoid arthritis. Two authors independently assessed the quality of the studies and extracted datas Results Of the initial 431 studies, fourteen instruments met the inclusion criteria. Significant methodological flaws were detected in most with only SEFAS met the COSMIN quality criteria. Conclusion SEFAS had the best quality and was ranked most appropriate for use with patients living with Rheumatoid Arthriti

Autopilot? A reflexive review of the piloting process in qualitative e-research

Purpose: This paper examines an oft-neglected aspect of qualitative research practice – conducting a pilot – using the innovative approach of ‘e-research’ to generate both practical and methodological insights. Approach: Using the authors’ ‘e-research’ pilot as a reflexive case study, key methodological issues are critically reviewed. This review is set in a broader context of the qualitative methods literature in which piloting appears largely as an implicit practice. Using a new and emerging approach (‘e-research’) provides a prompt to review our ‘autopilot’ tendencies and offers a new lens for analysing research practice. Findings: We find that despite an initial focus on ‘practical’ aspects of data collection within our ‘e-research’, the pilot opened up a range of areas for further consideration. We review research ethics, collaborative research practices and data management issues specifically for e-research but also reflect more broadly on potential implications for piloting within other research designs. Practical implications: We aim to offer both practical and methodological insights for qualitative researchers, whatever their methodological orientation, so that they might develop approaches for piloting that are appropriate to their own research endeavours. More specifically, we offer tentative guidance to those venturing into the emerging area of ‘e-research’. Value: This paper offers insight into an oft-ignored aspect of qualitative research, whilst also engaging in emerging area of methodological interest

Professional Philosophy, “Diversity,” and Racist Exclusion: On Van Norden’s Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto

A critical review essay, this work explains the methodological, material, and ideological reasons for why "diversity" initiatives in philosophy face an up-hill battle

Fluorides, orthodontics and demineralization: a systematic review

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing white spot lesion (WSL) demineralization during orthodontic treatment and compare all modes of fluoride delivery. Data sources: The search strategy for the review was carried out according to the standard Cochrane systematic review methodology. The following databases were searched for RCTs or CCTs: Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied when considering studies to be included. Authors of trials were contacted for further data. Data selection: The primary outcome of the review was the presence or absence of WSL by patient at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included any quantitative assessment of enamel mineral loss or lesion depth. Data extraction: Six reviewers independently, in duplicate, extracted data, including an assessment of the methodological quality of each trial. Data synthesis: Fifteen trials provided data for this review, although none fulfilled all the methodological quality assessment criteria. One study found that a daily NaF mouthrinse reduced the severity of demineralization surrounding an orthodontic appliance (lesion depth difference –70.0 µm; 95% CI –118.2 to –21.8 µm). One study found that use of a glass ionomer cement (GIC) for bracket bonding reduced the prevalence of WSL (Peto OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.15–0.84) compared with a composite resin. None of the studies fulfilled all of the methodological quality assessment criteria. Conclusions: There is some evidence that the use of a daily NaF mouthrinse or a GIC for bonding brackets might reduce the occurrence and severity of WSL during orthodontic treatment. More high quality, clinical research is required into the different modes of delivering fluoride to the orthodontic patient

Couple and family therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The objectives of this review will be to: assess the efficacy of couple and family therapies for adult PTSD, relative to 'no treatment' conditions, 'standard care', and structured or non‐specific individual psychological therapies; examine the clinical characteristics of studies that influence the relative efficacy of these therapies; and critically evaluate methodological features of studies that bias research findings

A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine

Background In maternal medicine, research evidence is scattered making it difficult to access information for clinical decision making. Systematic reviews of good methodological quality are essential to provide valid inferences and to produce usable evidence summaries to guide management. This review assesses the methodological features of existing systematic reviews in maternal medicine, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews in maternal medicine. Methods Medline, Embase, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched for relevant reviews published between 2001 and 2006. We selected those reviews in which a minimum of two databases were searched and the primary outcome was related to the maternal condition. The selected reviews were assessed for information on framing of question, literature search and methods of review. Results Out of 2846 citations, 68 reviews were selected. Among these, 39 (57%) were Cochrane reviews. Most of the reviews (50/68, 74%) evaluated therapeutic interventions. Overall, 54/68 (79%) addressed a focussed question. Although 64/68 (94%) reviews had a detailed search description, only 17/68 (25%) searched without language restriction. 32/68 (47%) attempted to include unpublished data and 11/68 (16%) assessed for the risk of missing studies quantitatively. The reviews had deficiencies in the assessment of validity of studies and exploration for heterogeneity. When compared to Cochrane reviews, other reviews were significantly inferior in specifying questions (OR 20.3, 95% CI 1.1–381.3, p = 0.04), framing focussed questions (OR 30.9, 95% CI 3.7- 256.2, p = 0.001), use of unpublished data (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.9–16.4, p = 0.002), assessment for heterogeneity (OR 38.1, 95%CI 2.1, 688.2, p = 0.01) and use of meta-analyses (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.3–10.8, p = 0.02). Conclusion This study identifies areas which have a strong influence on maternal morbidity and mortality but lack good quality systematic reviews. Overall quality of the existing systematic reviews was variable. Cochrane reviews were of better quality as compared to other reviews. There is a need for good quality systematic reviews to inform practice in maternal medicine

Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes in oncologY (EPIPHANY): A systematic review protocol

Introduction While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations. Methods and analysis An electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided. Ethics and dissemination Given that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research. Prospero registration number CRD42018099160

A Content and Methodological Review of Articles Concerning Multiracial Issues in Six Major Counseling Journals

This study describes a comprehensive content and methodological review of articles about multiracial issues in 6 journals related to counseling up to the year 2006. The authors summarize findings about the 18 articles that emerged from this review of the Journal of Counseling Psychology, Journal of Counseling & Development, The Counseling Psychologist, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, and Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. The authors specifically note trends in content and methodology as well as future directions for research