Dataset Information

Methodological quality of cohort study on rheumatic diseases in China: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To evaluate systematically the quality of the cohort studies on rheumatic diseases in China. METHODS:Relevant databases were searched to find cohort studies on rheumatic diseases in China, and the basic information included in the literature was extracted and analyzed. Chinese and English literature were then compared with regard to methodological quality, according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS:In total, we included 46 cohort studies, with 19 studies published in English and 27 studies published in Chinese. With regard to the basic characteristics of the literature, 78.26% of the studies were published in the past four years; 16 studies were associated with hyperuricemia, followed by eight studies involving systemic lupus erythematosus. The sample size of the studies in Chinese was lower than that in English studies (P< 0.05). The English literature was superior to the Chinese literature in terms of informed consent, ethical review and selection of statistical analysis methods. The methodology quality of the 46 included studies showed that the English and Chinese NOS scores were 5.59 ± 1.25 and 6.06 ± 1.11, respectively, and the difference was significant (P< 0.01). The "representativeness of the exposed group", "demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study", and the "adequacy of follow up of cohorts" scores were relatively low in Chinese and English studies. The score for "was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur" item in English was higher than that in the Chinese studies; however, the "study controls for the most important factor" score for Chinese papers was better than that for the English papers. CONCLUSION:The Chinese rheumatic disease cohort studies started late, with a small sample size and fewer types of rheumatism. The quality of Chinese studies was better than English studies, and all reports were insufficient. In particular, "selecting exposed groups", "controlling the outcomes before study implementation" and "adequacy of follow-up" needed improvement.

SUBMITTER: Zhang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7179908 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methodological quality of cohort study on rheumatic diseases in China: A systematic review.

Zhang Huan H Yi Guoxiang G Dai Mingzhu M Li Yanping Y Wu Bin B

PloS one 20200423 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate systematically the quality of the cohort studies on rheumatic diseases in China.<h4>Methods</h4>Relevant databases were searched to find cohort studies on rheumatic diseases in China, and the basic information included in the literature was extracted and analyzed. Chinese and English literature were then compared with regard to methodological quality, according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).<h4>Results</h4>In total, we included 46 cohort studies, with 19 studi ...[more]

PMID: 32324798

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNovel biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress might enhance the early recognition, management, and clinical outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases (RDs). We assessed the available evidence regarding the pathophysiological role of neopterin, the oxidation product of 7,8-dihydroneopterin, a pteridine generated in macrophages activated by interferon-γ, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting its concentrations in biological fluids in RD patients and healthy controls.MethodsWe searched electronic databases for relevant articles published between inception and 31 August 2023. The risk of bias and the certainty of evidence were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group system, respectively.ResultsIn 37 studies, when compared to healthy controls, RD patients had significantly higher concentrations of neopterin both in plasma or serum (standard mean difference, SMD=1.31, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.61; p<0.001; moderate certainty of evidence) and in the urine (SMD=1.65, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.43, p<0.001; I2 = 94.2%, p<0.001; low certainty of evidence). The results were stable in sensitivity analysis. There were non-significant associations in meta-regression and subgroup analysis between the effect size and age, male to female ratio, year of publication, sample size, RD duration, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, specific type of RD, presence of connective tissue disease, analytical method used, or biological matrix investigated (plasma vs. serum). By contrast, the effect size was significantly associated with the geographical area in studies assessing serum or plasma and with the type of RD in studies assessing urine.DiscussionPending additional studies that also focus on early forms of disease, our systematic review and meta-analysis supports the proposition that neopterin, a biomarker of inflammation and oxidative stress, can be useful for the identification of RDs. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023450209).Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42023450209.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) are considered the highest level of evidence to answer research questions; however, they are time and resource intensive.ObjectiveWhen comparing SR tasks done manually, using standard methods, versus those same SR tasks done using automated tools, (1) what is the difference in time to complete the SR task and (2) what is the impact on the error rate of the SR task?MethodsA case study compared specific tasks done during the conduct of an SR on prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic supplementation in chronic kidney disease. Two participants (manual team) conducted the SR using current methods, comprising a total of 16 tasks. Another two participants (automation team) conducted the tasks where a systematic review automation (SRA) tool was available, comprising of a total of six tasks. The time taken and error rate of the six tasks that were completed by both teams were compared.ResultsThe approximate time for the manual team to produce a draft of the background, methods, and results sections of the SR was 126 hours. For the six tasks in which times were compared, the manual team spent 2493 minutes (42 hours) on the tasks, compared to 708 minutes (12 hours) spent by the automation team. The manual team had a higher error rate in two of the six tasks-regarding Task 5: Run the systematic search, the manual team made eight errors versus three errors made by the automation team; regarding Task 12: Assess the risk of bias, 25 assessments differed from a reference standard for the manual team compared to 20 differences for the automation team. The manual team had a lower error rate in one of the six tasks-regarding Task 6: Deduplicate search results, the manual team removed one unique study and missed zero duplicates versus the automation team who removed two unique studies and missed seven duplicates. Error rates were similar for the two remaining compared tasks-regarding Task 7: Screen the titles and abstracts and Task 9: Screen the full text, zero relevant studies were excluded by both teams. One task could not be compared between groups-Task 8: Find the full text.ConclusionsFor the majority of SR tasks where an SRA tool was used, the time required to complete that task was reduced for novice researchers while methodological quality was maintained.

Project description:BackgroundThe quality of provided health care may be an important source of variation in rehabilitation outcomes, increasing the interest in associations between quality indicators (QIs) and improved patient outcomes. Therefore, we examined the associations between the quality of rehabilitation processes and subsequent clinical outcomes among patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).MethodsIn this multicentre prospective cohort study, adults with RMDs undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation at eight participating centres reported the quality of rehabilitation after 2 months and outcomes after 2, 7, and 12 months. We measured perceived quality of rehabilitation by 11 process indicators that cover the domains of initial assessments, patient participation and individual goal-setting, and individual follow-up and coordination across levels of health care. The patients responded "yes" or "no" to each indicator. Scores were calculated as pass rates (PRs) from 0 to 100% (best score). Clinical outcomes were goal attainment (Patient-Specific Functional Scale), physical function (30 s sit-to-stand test), and health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5D-5L). Associations between patient-reported quality of care and each outcome measure at 7 months was analysed by linear mixed models.ResultsA total of 293 patients were enrolled in this study (mean age 52 years, 76% female). Primary diagnoses were inflammatory rheumatic disease (64%), fibromyalgia syndrome (18%), unspecific neck, shoulder, or low back pain (8%), connective tissue disease (6%), and osteoarthritis (4%). The overall median PR for the process indicators was 73% (range 11-100%). The PR was lowest (median 40%) for individual follow-up and coordination across levels of care. The mixed model analyses showed that higher PRs for the process indicators were not associated with improved goal attainment or improved physical function or improved health-related quality of life.ConclusionsThe quality of rehabilitation processes was not associated with important clinical outcomes. An implication of this is that measuring only the outcome dimension of quality may result in incomplete evaluation and monitoring of the quality of care, and we suggest using information from both the structure, process, and outcome dimensions to draw inferences about the quality, and plan future quality initiatives in the field of complex rehabilitation.Trial registrationThe study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03102814 ).

Project description:BACKGROUND:A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. METHODS:We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis. RESULTS:We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of 'quality'. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer's comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18). CONCLUSION:Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Measurement of self-efficacy requires carefully developed and validated instruments. It is currently unclear whether available self-efficacy instruments for chronic diseases fulfill these requirements. Our aim was to systematically identify all existing self-efficacy scales for five major chronic diseases and to assess their development and validation process. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, and EMBASE) to identify studies describing the development and/or validation process of self-efficacy instruments for the five chronic diseases diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, arthritis, and heart failure. Two members of the review team independently selected articles meeting inclusion criteria. The self-efficacy instruments were evaluated in terms of their development (aim of instrument, a priori considerations, identification of items, selection of items, development of domains, answer options) and validation (test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, validity, responsiveness) process. RESULTS: Of 584 potentially eligible papers we included 25 (13 for diabetes, 5 for asthma, 4 for arthritis, 3 for COPD, 0 for heart failure) which covered 26 different self-efficacy instrument versions. For 8 instruments (30.8%), the authors described the aim before the scales were developed whereas for the other instruments the aim was unclear. In one study (3.8%) a priori considerations were specified. In none of the studies a systematic literature search was carried out to identify items. The item selection process was often not clearly described (38.5%). Test-retest reliability was assessed for 9 instruments (34.6%), validity using a correlational approach for 18 (69.2%), and responsiveness to change for 3 (11.5%) instruments. CONCLUSION: The development and validation process of the majority of the self-efficacy instruments had major limitations. The aim of the instruments was often not specified and for most instruments, not all measurement properties that are important to support the specific aim of the instrument (for example responsiveness for evaluative instruments) were assessed. Researchers who develop and validate self-efficacy instruments should adhere more closely to important methodological concepts for development and validation of patient-reported outcomes and report their methods more transparently. We propose a systematic five step approach for the development and validation of self-efficacy instruments.

Dataset Information

Methodological quality of cohort study on rheumatic diseases in China: A systematic review.

Publications

Methodological quality of cohort study on rheumatic diseases in China: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets