The development of QERM scoring system for comprehensive assessment of the Quality of Empirical Research in Medicine - Part 1.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
{"title":"The development of QERM scoring system for comprehensive assessment of the Quality of Empirical Research in Medicine - Part 1.","authors":"","doi":"10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_460_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Whereas a large number of features are mentioned to connote the quality of medical research, no tool is available to comprehensively measure it objectively across different types of studies. Also, all the available tools are for reporting, and none includes quality of the inputs and the process of research. The present paper is aimed to initiate a discussion on the need to develop such a comprehensive scoring system (in the first place), to show that it is feasible, and to describe the process of developing a credible system.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An expert group comprising researchers, reviewers, and editors of medical journals extensively reviewed the literature on the quality of medical research and held detailed discussions to parse quality at all stages of medical research into specific domains and items that can be assigned scores on the pattern of quality-of-life score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Besides identifying the domains of the quality of medical research, a comprehensive tool for scoring emerged that can be possibly used to objectively measure the quality of empirical research comprising surveys, trials, and observational studies. Thus, this can be used as a tool to assess Quality of Empirical Research in Medicine (QERM). The expert group confirmed its face and content validity. The tool can be used by the researchers for self-assessment and improvement before submission of a paper for publication, and the reviewers and editors can use this for assessing the submissions. Published papers can also be rated such as those included in a meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is feasible to devise a comprehensive scoring system comprising domains and items for assessing the quality of medical research end-to-end from choosing a problem to publication. The proposed scoring system needs to be reviewed by the researchers and needs to be validated.</p>","PeriodicalId":16860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Postgraduate Medicine","volume":"68 4","pages":"221-230"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9841535/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Postgraduate Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_460_22","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Whereas a large number of features are mentioned to connote the quality of medical research, no tool is available to comprehensively measure it objectively across different types of studies. Also, all the available tools are for reporting, and none includes quality of the inputs and the process of research. The present paper is aimed to initiate a discussion on the need to develop such a comprehensive scoring system (in the first place), to show that it is feasible, and to describe the process of developing a credible system.

Method: An expert group comprising researchers, reviewers, and editors of medical journals extensively reviewed the literature on the quality of medical research and held detailed discussions to parse quality at all stages of medical research into specific domains and items that can be assigned scores on the pattern of quality-of-life score.

Results: Besides identifying the domains of the quality of medical research, a comprehensive tool for scoring emerged that can be possibly used to objectively measure the quality of empirical research comprising surveys, trials, and observational studies. Thus, this can be used as a tool to assess Quality of Empirical Research in Medicine (QERM). The expert group confirmed its face and content validity. The tool can be used by the researchers for self-assessment and improvement before submission of a paper for publication, and the reviewers and editors can use this for assessing the submissions. Published papers can also be rated such as those included in a meta-analysis.

Conclusion: It is feasible to devise a comprehensive scoring system comprising domains and items for assessing the quality of medical research end-to-end from choosing a problem to publication. The proposed scoring system needs to be reviewed by the researchers and needs to be validated.

医学实证研究质量综合评价的QERM评分系统的开发——第一部分。
目的:虽然提到了大量的特征来暗示医学研究的质量,但没有工具可以在不同类型的研究中全面客观地衡量它。此外,所有可用的工具都是用于报告的,没有一个包括输入和研究过程的质量。本文旨在就开发这样一个综合评分系统的必要性(首先)展开讨论,以表明它是可行的,并描述开发一个可信系统的过程。方法:由研究人员、审稿人和医学期刊编辑组成的专家组广泛审查了有关医学研究质量的文献,并进行了详细的讨论,将医学研究各个阶段的质量解析为可以在生活质量评分模式上分配分数的特定领域和项目。结果:除了确定医学研究质量的领域外,还出现了一个全面的评分工具,可以用来客观地衡量包括调查、试验和观察性研究在内的实证研究的质量。因此,这可以用作评估医学实证研究质量(QERM)的工具。专家组确认了其外观和内容的有效性。该工具可用于研究人员在论文发表前进行自我评估和改进,审稿人和编辑也可使用该工具对论文进行评估。发表的论文也可以被评级,比如那些被纳入元分析的论文。结论:设计一个包含领域和项目的综合评分系统,从选题到发表,全程对医学研究质量进行评价是可行的。提出的评分系统需要由研究人员进行审查,并需要进行验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal will cover technical, clinical and bioengineering studies related to human well being including ethical and social issues. The journal gives preference to clinically oriented studies over experimental and animal studies. The Journal would publish peer-reviewed original research papers, case reports, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and debates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信