Quality of Reporting Using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study Criteria in Chiropractic Mixed Methods Research: A Methodological Review

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Peter C. Emary DC, PhD , Kent J. Stuber DC, PhD , Lawrence Mbuagbaw MD, MPH, PhD , Mark Oremus PhD , Paul S. Nolet DC, MS, MPH , Jennifer V. Nash DC , Craig A. Bauman DC , Carla Ciraco DC , Rachel J. Couban MA, MISt , Jason W. Busse DC, PhD
{"title":"Quality of Reporting Using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study Criteria in Chiropractic Mixed Methods Research: A Methodological Review","authors":"Peter C. Emary DC, PhD ,&nbsp;Kent J. Stuber DC, PhD ,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw MD, MPH, PhD ,&nbsp;Mark Oremus PhD ,&nbsp;Paul S. Nolet DC, MS, MPH ,&nbsp;Jennifer V. Nash DC ,&nbsp;Craig A. Bauman DC ,&nbsp;Carla Ciraco DC ,&nbsp;Rachel J. Couban MA, MISt ,&nbsp;Jason W. Busse DC, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jmpt.2023.11.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The purpose of this review was to examine the reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from the inception of each database to December 31, 2020, for chiropractic studies reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods or mixed qualitative methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, extracted data, and appraised reporting using the GRAMMS criteria and risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with reporting using GRAMMS criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 1040 citations, 55 studies were eligible for review. Thirty-seven of these 55 articles employed either a multistage or convergent mixed methods design, and, on average, 3 of 6 GRAMMS items were reported among included studies. We found a strong positive correlation in scores between the GRAMMS and MMAT instruments (<em>r</em> = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). In our adjusted analysis, publications in journals indexed in Web of Science (adjusted odds ratio = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.95) were associated with higher reporting using GRAMMS criteria. Three of the 55 studies fully adhered to all 6 GRAMMS criteria, 4 studies adhered to 5 criteria, 10 studies adhered to 4 criteria, and the remaining 38 adhered to 3 criteria or fewer.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Our findings suggest that reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using GRAMMS criteria was poor, particularly among studies with a higher risk of bias.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16132,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","volume":"46 3","pages":"Pages 152-161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016147542300088X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this review was to examine the reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria.

Methods

In this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from the inception of each database to December 31, 2020, for chiropractic studies reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods or mixed qualitative methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, extracted data, and appraised reporting using the GRAMMS criteria and risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with reporting using GRAMMS criteria.

Results

Of 1040 citations, 55 studies were eligible for review. Thirty-seven of these 55 articles employed either a multistage or convergent mixed methods design, and, on average, 3 of 6 GRAMMS items were reported among included studies. We found a strong positive correlation in scores between the GRAMMS and MMAT instruments (r = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). In our adjusted analysis, publications in journals indexed in Web of Science (adjusted odds ratio = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.95) were associated with higher reporting using GRAMMS criteria. Three of the 55 studies fully adhered to all 6 GRAMMS criteria, 4 studies adhered to 5 criteria, 10 studies adhered to 4 criteria, and the remaining 38 adhered to 3 criteria or fewer.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using GRAMMS criteria was poor, particularly among studies with a higher risk of bias.
在脊骨神经科学混合方法研究中使用混合方法研究的良好报告标准的报告质量:方法论综述。
目的本综述的目的是使用混合方法研究的良好报告(GRAMMS)标准检查捏脊混合方法研究的报告。方法在本方法学综述中,我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL和脊椎指压文献索引(Index to Chiropractic Literature),从每个数据库建立之初到2020年12月31日,检索使用定性和定量方法或混合定性方法的脊椎指压研究。成对的审稿人独立筛选标题、摘要和全文研究,提取数据,并使用GRAMMS标准和混合方法评估工具(MMAT)的偏倚风险评估报告。使用广义估计方程来探索与使用GRAMMS标准报告相关的因素。结果1040篇引用中,55篇研究符合综述条件。这55篇文章中有37篇采用了多阶段或收敛混合方法设计,在纳入的研究中,平均6个GRAMMS项目中有3个被报道。我们发现GRAMMS和MMAT仪器之间的得分呈正相关(r = 0.78;95% ci, 0.66-0.87)。在我们的调整分析中,Web of Science索引期刊上的出版物(调整优势比= 2.71;95% CI, 1.48-4.95)与使用GRAMMS标准的较高报告率相关。55项研究中有3项完全符合6项GRAMMS标准,4项符合5项标准,10项符合4项标准,其余38项符合3项或更少标准。结论:我们的研究结果表明,使用GRAMMS标准的捏脊混合方法研究报告较差,特别是在偏倚风险较高的研究中。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
63
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) is an international and interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the advancement of conservative health care principles and practices. The JMPT is the premier biomedical publication in the chiropractic profession and publishes peer reviewed, research articles and the Journal''s editorial board includes leading researchers from around the world. The Journal publishes original primary research and review articles of the highest quality in relevant topic areas. The JMPT addresses practitioners and researchers needs by adding to their clinical and basic science knowledge and by informing them about relevant issues that influence health care practices.
×
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