Dataset Information

Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians.

ABSTRACT: Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is also valuable for all clinicians who use published research to inform their clinical practice.We present a review written specifically for the practising geriatrician. This considers how quality is defined in relation to the methodological conduct and reporting of research. Having established why quality assessment is important, we present and critique tools which are available to standardise quality assessment. We consider five study designs: RCTs, non-randomised studies, observational studies, systematic reviews and diagnostic test accuracy studies. Quality assessment for each of these study designs is illustrated with an example of published cognitive research. The practical applications of the tools are highlighted, with guidance on their strengths and limitations. We signpost educational resources and offer specific advice for use of these tools.We hope that all geriatricians become comfortable with critical appraisal of published research and that use of the tools described in this review - along with awareness of their strengths and limitations - become a part of teaching, journal clubs and practice.

SUBMITTER: Harrison JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5405751 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians.

Harrison Jennifer Kirsty JK Reid James J Quinn Terry J TJ Shenkin Susan Deborah SD

Age and ageing 20170501 3

Evidence based medicine tells us that we should not accept published research at face value. Even research from established teams published in the highest impact journals can have methodological flaws, biases and limited generalisability. The critical appraisal of research studies can seem daunting, but tools are available to make the process easier for the non-specialist. Understanding the language and process of quality assessment is essential when considering or conducting research, and is al ...[more]

PMID: 27932357

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guideline-based processes for the assessment of chest pain are lengthy and resource intensive. The IMProved Assessment of Chest Pain Trial (IMPACT) protocol was introduced in one Australian hospital Emergency Department (ED) to more efficiently risk stratify patients. The theoretical domains framework is a useful approach to assist in identifying barriers and facilitators to the implementation of new guidelines in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to the use of the IMPACT protocol. METHODS:Guided by the theoretical domains framework, semi-structured interviews with nine ED clinical staff (medical and nursing) were undertaken in 2016. Content analysis was conducted independently by two researchers to identify those theoretical domains that facilitated or hindered protocol use. RESULTS:Domains most often reported as fundamental to the use of the IMPACT protocol included 'social/professional role and identity', 'environmental context and resources' and 'social influences'. These factors seemingly influenced professional confidence, with participants noting 'goals' that included standardisation of practice, enhanced patient safety, and reduced need for unnecessary testing. The domain 'environmental context and resources' also contained the most noted barrier - the need to inform new members of staff regarding protocol use. Opportunities to overcome this barrier included modelling of protocol use by staff at all levels and education - both formal and informal. CONCLUSIONS:A range of domains were identified by ED staff as influencing their chest pain management behaviour. Fundamental to its use were champions/leaders that were trusted and accessible, as well as social influences (other staff within ED and other specialty areas) that enabled and supported protocol use. Research investigating the implementation and perceived use of the protocol at other sites, of varied geographical locations, is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundQualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly used alongside reviews of effectiveness to inform guidelines and other decisions. To support this use, the GRADE-CERQual approach was developed to assess and communicate the confidence we have in findings from reviews of qualitative research. One component of this approach requires an appraisal of the methodological limitations of studies contributing data to a review finding. Diverse critical appraisal tools for qualitative research are currently being used. However, it is unclear which tool is most appropriate for informing a GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence.MethodologyWe searched for tools that were explicitly intended for critically appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research. We searched the reference lists of existing methodological reviews for critical appraisal tools, and also conducted a systematic search in June 2016 for tools published in health science and social science databases. Two reviewers screened identified titles and abstracts, and then screened the full text of potentially relevant articles. One reviewer extracted data from each article and a second reviewer checked the extraction. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach to code checklist criteria from each identified tool and to organise these into themes.ResultsWe identified 102 critical appraisal tools: 71 tools had previously been included in methodological reviews, and 31 tools were identified from our systematic search. Almost half of the tools were published after 2010. Few authors described how their tool was developed, or why a new tool was needed. After coding all criteria, we developed a framework that included 22 themes. None of the tools included all 22 themes. Some themes were included in up to 95 of the tools.ConclusionIt is problematic that researchers continue to develop new tools without adequately examining the many tools that already exist. Furthermore, the plethora of tools, old and new, indicates a lack of consensus regarding the best tool to use, and an absence of empirical evidence about the most important criteria for assessing the methodological limitations of qualitative research, including in the context of use with GRADE-CERQual.

Project description:BackgroundMany mental disorders are preceded by a prodromal phase consisting of various attenuated and unspecific symptoms and functional impairment. Electronic health records are generally used to capture these symptoms during medical consultation. Internet and mobile technologies provide the opportunity to monitor symptoms emerging in patients' environments using ecological momentary assessment techniques to support preventive therapeutic decision making.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the acceptability of a Web-based app designed to collect medical data during appointments and provide ecological momentary assessment features.MethodsWe recruited clinicians at 4 community psychiatry departments in France to participate. They used the app to assess patients and to collect data after viewing a video of a young patient's emerging psychiatric consultation. We then asked them to answer a short anonymous self-administered questionnaire that evaluated their experience, the acceptability of the app, and their habit of using new technologies.ResultsOf 24 practitioners invited, 21 (88%) agreed to participate. Most of them were between 25 and 45 years old, and greater age was not associated with poorer acceptability. Most of the practitioners regularly used new technologies, and 95% (20/21) connected daily to the internet, with 70% (15/21) connecting 3 times a day or more. However, only 57% (12/21) reported feeling comfortable with computers. Of the clinicians, 86% (18/21) would recommend the tool to their colleagues and 67% (14/21) stated that they would be interested in daily use of the app. Most of the clinicians (16/21, 76%) found the interface easy to use and useful. However, several clinicians noted the lack of readability (8/21, 38%) and the need to improve ergonometric features (4/21, 19%), in particular to facilitate browsing through various subsections. Some participants (5/21, 24%) were concerned about the storage of medical data and most of them (11/21, 52%) seemed to be uncomfortable with this.ConclusionsWe describe the first step of the development of a Web app combining an electronic health record and ecological momentary assessment features. This online tool offers the possibility to assess patients and to integrate medical data easily into face-to-face conditions. The acceptability of this app supports the feasibility of its broader implementation. This app could help to standardize assessment and to build up a strong database. Used in conjunction with robust data mining analytic techniques, such a database would allow exploration of risk factors, patterns of symptom evolution, and identification of distinct risk subgroups.

Dataset Information

Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians.

Publications

Using quality assessment tools to critically appraise ageing research: a guide for clinicians.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets