Methodological reporting in feasibility studies: a descriptive review of the nursing intervention research literature.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In reaction to weaknesses in feasibility studies reporting, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement published an extension for feasibility studies in 2016.Aim
The aim of this study was to systematically review and appraise the reporting of feasibility studies in the nursing intervention research literature based on the CONSORT statement extension for feasibility studies.Method
Papers published prior to January 2018 that described feasibility studies of nursing interventions were retrieved. Components of feasibility studies were coded, and code frequencies were analysed.Results
The review included 186 papers. Although most papers (n = 142, 76.3%) included the label 'pilot' or 'feasibility' in their title, reporting for other components generally did not adhere to one or several CONSORT recommendations. Most papers reported objectives (n = 116, 62.4%), designs (n = 95, 51%), or rationales for sample size (n = 165, 88.7%) that were incongruent with the purpose of feasibility studies.Discussion
This review results in two main implications for nursing research. First, we noted that the reporting of feasibility studies is weak. While all papers described feasibility studies, almost half focused exclusively on testing the effectiveness of an intervention. Second, we identified rationales for sample size along with key references that could offer guidance in reporting feasibility studies while being coherent with the CONSORT recommendations.
SUBMITTER: Mailhot T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7932371 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionMethodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool-the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist-to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies.Methods and analysisWe will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies.Ethics and disseminationThe consensus study has been exempt from ethics review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The results of the review and the reporting guideline will be disseminated in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, in requests to journal editors (to endorse or make the guideline a requirement for authors), and on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and reporting guideline websites.RegistrationWe have registered the development of the reporting guideline with the EQUATOR Network and publicly posted this project on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/9hgbq).
| S-EPMC7747548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMendelian randomization (MR) studies using Genetic risk scores (GRS) as an instrumental variable (IV) have increasingly been used to control for unmeasured confounding in observational healthcare databases. However, proper reporting of methodological issues is sparse in these studies. We aimed to review published papers related to MR studies and identify reporting problems.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review using the clinical articles published between 2009 and 2019. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases. We retrieved information from every MR study, including the tests performed to evaluate assumptions and the modelling approach used for estimation. Using our inclusion/exclusion criteria, finally, we identified 97 studies to conduct the review according to the PRISMA statement.ResultsOnly 66 (68%) of the studies empirically verified the first assumption (Relevance assumption), and 40 (41.2%) studies reported the appropriate tests (e.g., R2, F-test) to investigate the association. A total of 35.1% clearly stated and discussed theoretical justifications for the second and third assumptions. 30.9% of the studies used a two-stage least square, and 11.3% used the Wald estimator method for estimating IV. Also, 44.3% of the studies conducted a sensitivity analysis to illuminate the robustness of estimates for violations of the untestable assumptions.ConclusionsWe found that incompleteness of the justification of the assumptions for the instrumental variable in MR studies was a common problem in our selected studies. This may misdirect the findings of the studies.
| S-EPMC8761268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate the characteristics and methodology consistency in nursing research with descriptive phenomenological design.DesignScoping review methodology.Data sourcesThree electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed) were systematically searched for qualitative studies with a descriptive phenomenological design published in nursing journals between January 2021 and December 2021.Review methodsQuality appraisal of each study was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Data were extracted and presented narratively based on research objective, design justification and consistency, theoretical framework, sampling method and sample size, data collection method, data analysis approach and presentation of findings.ResultsOne hundred and three studies were included in the review. Overall, the characteristics of the studies are mostly consistent with Husserl's phenomenology approach in terms of research objectives, the use of other theoretical frameworks, sampling and data collection methods. However, the findings revealed several inconsistencies between research design and data analysis techniques, the lack of design justification and the lack of mention of bracketing.ConclusionsApart from the need for more research and standardized guidelines to clarify the various qualitative research methods, future nurse researchers are urged to provide more methodological details when publishing a descriptive phenomenological study so that readers can examine the effectiveness and quality of the method.
| S-EPMC9320962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods.ObjectiveTo quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality.DiscussionThis will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.
| S-EPMC8442283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field.MethodsIn June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0.ResultsIn total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34 ± 0.97 (Mean ± SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in "trial design," changes in "outcomes" and "implementation," or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for "blinding." Poor reporting was found in detailing the "settings of participants" (13.1%), "type of randomization sequence generation" (1.8%), calculation methods of "sample size" (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for "sample size" (0.3%), "allocation concealment mechanism" (0.3%), additional analyses in "statistical methods" (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of "blinding" (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of "participants," "interventions," and definitions of the "outcomes" and "statistical methods." The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score.ConclusionsThe completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods.
| S-EPMC4240555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Mixed methods research intervention studies integrate quantitative evaluation approaches, such as randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs, with qualitative research to evaluate the effectiveness, efficacy, or other results of an intervention or program. These types of studies, which have attracted growing attention in recent years, enhance the scope and rigor of the evaluation. While various frameworks that summarize the justifications for carrying out these types of studies and provide implementation guidance have been published in the last few years in the health sciences, we do not know whether such frameworks have been properly implemented in the social and educational sciences. This review examined the methodological features and reporting practices of mixed methods intervention studies aimed at increasing young people’s interest in STEM. Methods A systematic search was carried out in APA PsycNET, ERIC, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science, and a hand search in 20 journals. We included peer-reviewed English-language articles that reported intervention studies with a quantitative component measuring outcomes specific to increasing secondary school students’ interest in STEM fields, a qualitative component conducted before, during, or after the quantitative component, and evidence of integration of both components. Qualitative content analysis and ideal-type analysis were used to synthesize the findings. Results We found 34 studies; the majority published in the last ten years. Several patterns of mixed methods application were described in these studies, illustrating the unique insights that can be gained by employing this methodology. The reporting quality of the included studies was generally adequate, especially regarding the justification for using a mixed methods intervention design and the integration of the quantitative and qualitative components. Nonetheless, a few reporting issues were observed, such as a lack of detail in the presentation of the mixed methods design, an inadequate description of the qualitative sampling and analysis techniques, and the absence of joint displays for representing integration. Discussion Authors must pay attention to these issues to ensure that the insights obtained by the use of mixed methods research are effectively communicated.
| S-EPMC9849589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify predictive factors for high quality.Materials and methodsWe systematically searched PubMed to identify meta-analyses published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2015 in 10 predetermined major paper-based urology journals. The characteristics of the included meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological qualities were assessed by the PRISMA checklist (27 items) and AMSTAR tool (11 items), respectively. Descriptive statistics were used for individual items as a measure of overall compliance, and PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were calculated as the sum of adequately reported domains. Logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for high qualities.ResultsA total of 183 meta-analyses were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 22.74 ± 2.04 and 7.57 ± 1.41, respectively. PRISMA item 5, protocol and registration, items 15 and 22, risk of bias across studies, items 16 and 23, additional analysis had less than 50% adherence. AMSTAR item 1, "a priori" design, item 5, list of studies and item 10, publication bias had less than 50% adherence. Logistic regression analyses showed that funding support and "a priori" design were associated with superior reporting quality, following PRISMA guideline and "a priori" design were associated with superior methodological quality.ConclusionsReporting and methodological qualities of recently published meta-analyses in major paper-based urology journals are generally good. Further improvement could potentially be achieved by strictly adhering to PRISMA guideline and having "a priori" protocol.
| S-EPMC5399869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Comparative accuracy studies evaluate the relative performance of two or more diagnostic tests. As any other form of research, such studies should be reported in an informative manner, to allow replication and to be useful for decision-making. In this study we aimed to assess whether and how components of test comparisons were reported in comparative accuracy studies. We evaluated 100 comparative accuracy studies, published in 2015, 2016 or 2017, randomly sampled from 238 comparative accuracy systematic reviews. We extracted information on 20 reporting items, pertaining to the identification of the test comparison, its validity, and the actual results of the comparison. About a third of the studies (n = 36) did not report the comparison as a study objective or hypothesis. Although most studies (n = 86) reported how participants had been allocated to index tests, we could often not evaluate whether test interpreters had been blinded to the results of other index tests (n = 40; among 59 applicable studies), nor could we identify the sequence of index tests (n = 52; among 90 applicable studies) or the methods for comparing measures of accuracy (n = 59). Two-by-four table data (revealing the agreement between index tests) were only reported by 9 of 90 paired comparative studies. More than half of the studies (n = 64) did not provide measures of statistical imprecision for comparative accuracy. Our findings suggest that components of test comparisons are frequently missing or incompletely described in comparative accuracy studies included in systematic reviews. Explicit guidance for reporting comparative accuracy studies may facilitate the production of full and informative study reports.
| S-EPMC8246725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Our ability to look at structure and function of a living brain has increased exponentially since the early 1970s. Many studies of developmental disorders now routinely include a brain imaging or electrophysiological component. Amid current enthusiasm for applications of neuroscience to educational interventions, we need to pause to consider what neuroimaging data can tell us. Images of brain activity are seductive, and have been used to give credibility to commercial interventions, yet we have only a limited idea of what the brain bases of language disorders are, let alone how to alter them.A review of six studies of neuroimaging correlates of language intervention found recurring methodological problems: lack of an adequate control group, inadequate power, incomplete reporting of data, no correction for multiple comparisons, data dredging and failure to analyse treatment effects appropriately. In addition, there is a tendency to regard neuroimaging data as more meaningful than behavioural data, even though it is behaviour that interventions aim to alter.In our current state of knowledge, it would be better to spend research funds doing well-designed trials of behavioural treatment to establish which methods are effective, rather than rushing headlong into functional imaging studies of unproven treatments.
| S-EPMC3593170 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe disability weight is an essential factor to estimate the healthy time that is lost due to living with a certain state of illness. A 2014 review showed a considerable variation in methods used to derive disability weights. Since then, several sets of disability weights have been developed. This systematic review aimed to provide an updated and comparative overview of the methodological design choices and surveying techniques that have been used in disability weights measurement studies and how they evolved over time.MethodsA literature search was conducted in multiple international databases (early-1990 to mid-2021). Records were screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. The quality of the included disability weights measurement studies was assessed using the Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies (CREATE) instrument. Studies were collated by characteristics and methodological design approaches. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and discussed with a second.ResultsForty-six unique disability weights measurement studies met our eligibility criteria. More than half (n = 27; 59%) of the identified studies assessed disability weights for multiple ill-health outcomes. Thirty studies (65%) described the health states using disease-specific descriptions or a combination of a disease-specific descriptions and generic-preference instruments. The percentage of studies obtaining health preferences from a population-based panel increased from 14% (2004-2011) to 32% (2012-2021). None of the disability weight studies published in the past 10 years used the annual profile approach. Most studies performed panel-meetings to obtain disability weights data.ConclusionsOur review reveals that a methodological uniformity between national and GBD disability weights studies increased, especially from 2010 onwards. Over years, more studies used disease-specific health state descriptions in line with those of the GBD study, panel from general populations, and data from web-based surveys and/or household surveys. There is, however, a wide variation in valuation techniques that were used to derive disability weights at national-level and that persisted over time.
| S-EPMC8944058 | biostudies-literature