Research methods in medicine & health sciences最新文献_第6页

Stroke knowledge: Developing a framework for data integration in a sequential exploratory mixed method study 中风知识：在顺序探索性混合方法研究中开发数据集成框架

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-12-10 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320978040

P. Grech, R. Grech

引用次数: 4

Choosing the frequency of follow-up in longitudinal studies: Is more necessarily better? 纵向研究中随访频率的选择：越有必要越好吗？

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-12-06 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320975260

E. Pullenayegum, Y. Xi, L. Lim, J. Levin, B. Feldman

{"title":"Choosing the frequency of follow-up in longitudinal studies: Is more necessarily better?","authors":"E. Pullenayegum, Y. Xi, L. Lim, J. Levin, B. Feldman","doi":"10.1177/2632084320975260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320975260","url":null,"abstract":"Background Follow-up frequency is an important design parameter in longitudinal studies. We quantified the impact of reducing follow-up frequency on the precision of estimated regression parameters, and investigated the impact of incorrectly assuming an exchangeable correlation structure on estimates of the loss of precision resulting from reduced follow-up. Methods We estimated the loss in precision on deleting every second observation from three longitudinal cohorts: patients with Childhood Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (cSLE), the Canadian Haemophilia Prophylaxis Study (CHPS), and patients with Juvenile Dermatomyositis (JDM). We compared these results with those from a theoretical formula assuming an exchangeable correlation structure. Results The increase in sample size needed to compensate for halving follow-up frequency was 9%, 6% and 28% for the cSLE, CHPS and JDM cohorts respectively. Under the assumption of an exchangeable correlation, the estimated increases in sample size were 22%, 11% and 10% respectively. Conclusions Reducing follow-up frequency can result in minimal loss of information, as seen in the CHPS cohort. While using a theoretical formula based on an exchangeable correlation structure is convenient, it can be inaccurate when the true correlation structure is not exchangeable.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"2 1","pages":"61 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320975260","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49598015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Adjustment for the measurement error in evaluating biomarker performances at baseline for future survival outcomes: Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve within a joint modelling framework 对未来生存结果基线生物标志物性能评估测量误差的调整:联合建模框架内随时间变化的受试者工作特征曲线

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-11-11 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320972257

R. Kolamunnage-Dona, A. Kamarudin

{"title":"Adjustment for the measurement error in evaluating biomarker performances at baseline for future survival outcomes: Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve within a joint modelling framework","authors":"R. Kolamunnage-Dona, A. Kamarudin","doi":"10.1177/2632084320972257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320972257","url":null,"abstract":"The performance of a biomarker is defined by how well the biomarker is capable to distinguish between healthy and diseased individuals. This assessment is usually based on the baseline value of the biomarker; the value at the earliest time point of the patient follow-up, and quantified by ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve analysis. However, the observed baseline value is often subjected to measurement error due to imperfect laboratory conditions and limited machine precision. Failing to adjust for measurement error may underestimate the true performance of the biomarker, and in a direct comparison, useful biomarkers could be overlooked. We develop a novel approach to account for measurement error when calculating the performance of the baseline biomarker value for future survival outcomes. We adopt a joint longitudinal and survival data modelling formulation and use the available longitudinally repeated values of the biomarker to make adjustment of the measurement error in time-dependent ROC curve analysis. Our simulation study shows that the proposed measurement error-adjusted estimator is more efficient for evaluating the performance of the biomarker than estimators ignoring the measurement error. The proposed method is illustrated using Mayo Clinic primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) study.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"2 1","pages":"51 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320972257","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42457218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Understanding basic numbers: examples from Brexit, Covid and common medical conditions 了解基本数字：英国脱欧、新冠肺炎和常见疾病的例子

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-10-13 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320957201

M. Campbell, D. Green, D. Barker

{"title":"Understanding basic numbers: examples from Brexit, Covid and common medical conditions","authors":"M. Campbell, D. Green, D. Barker","doi":"10.1177/2632084320957201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320957201","url":null,"abstract":"The UK Brexit debate and the current Covid pandemic have been fertile grounds for people seeking poor use of statistics, and demonstrate a need to reiterate some basic principles of data presentation. Communicating basic numbers to convey the correct message is a vital skill for a public health professional but even basic numbers can be difficult to understand, and are susceptible to misuse. The first issue is how to understand ‘orphan’ numbers; numbers quoted without comparison or context. This leads on to the problems of understand numbers as proportions and how to make comparisons using proportions. Percentages, and in particular percentage changes, are also a major source of misunderstanding and the baseline percentage should always be given. The use of relative risk can also convey the wrong message and should always be accompanied by a measure of absolute risk. Similarly, numbers needed to treat should also refer to baseline risks. Communicating numbers is often more effective using natural counts or frequencies rather than fractions or proportions, and using pictorial representations of proportions can also be effective. The paper will also examine the problems of using simple ratios to try and adjust one continuous variable by another in particular the use of the BMI and for standardising death rates by institution. The misuse of reporting occurs in primary sources such as academic papers, but even more so in secondary reporting sources such as general media reports. It is natural to try and convey complex messages using a single summary number, but there are assumptions behind these summaries that should be questioned. It is usually better to give the individual numbers rather than a ratio of them.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"2 1","pages":"31 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320957201","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42689594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Envelope use and reporting in randomised controlled trials: A guide for researchers 随机对照试验中信封的使用和报告:研究人员指南

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-10-13 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320957204

Laura Clark, A. Dean, A. Mitchell, D. Torgerson

{"title":"Envelope use and reporting in randomised controlled trials: A guide for researchers","authors":"Laura Clark, A. Dean, A. Mitchell, D. Torgerson","doi":"10.1177/2632084320957204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320957204","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction To produce robust evidence RCTs need to be rigorously conducted as poorly performed studies introduce bias and can mislead clinicians and policy makers. Poor allocation concealment has the largest single impact on bias in RCTs than other methodological aspects. Envelopes are frequently used as a method of allocation concealment and can be associated with increased risk of bias. This paper aims to review envelope use in RCTs published in 2017–2018 and create a guide as a reference for researchers when planning and publishing RCTs when using envelopes as an allocation concealment method. Methods RCTs that used envelopes as a form of allocation concealment that were published in BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and The Lancet in 2017 and 2018 were identified and methodological data on their envelope use extracted and authors were contacted to ascertain reasons for using envelopes in their research. Results 338 RCTs were identified that were published in 2017 and 2018. 8% (n = 29) of the RCTs published used envelopes as an allocation concealment method. 24.1% (n = 7) of studies reported envelope studies robustly with all required methodological information stated to enable an assessment of quality. Budget was the most frequent reason given for envelope use (41.7%). Discussion Only 24% of published RCTs, that used envelopes, contained robust methodological information to enable the reader to judge whether the randomisation and allocation concealment method was adequate. Conclusion RCTs are not reporting envelope use well. RCTs using envelopes should be designed and reported clearly ensuring all necessary methodological information is included.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"2 1","pages":"2 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320957204","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47215022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 10

Expanding hermeneutic horizons: Working as multiple researchers and with multiple participants 拓展解释学视野：作为多个研究者和多个参与者工作

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320947571

J. Montague, Eleanor Phillips, Fiona Holland, S. Archer

{"title":"Expanding hermeneutic horizons: Working as multiple researchers and with multiple participants","authors":"J. Montague, Eleanor Phillips, Fiona Holland, S. Archer","doi":"10.1177/2632084320947571","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320947571","url":null,"abstract":"The double hermeneutic is a central feature of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Typically, this has been considered in relation to individual researchers working with experiential accounts from individual participants. IPA has, however, frequently been applied by multiple researchers; a further layer of complexity occurs when individual or multiple researchers analyse data from group interactions. Little attention has been paid to hermeneutic considerations in these contexts. We present insights into our encounters with multiple hermeneutics as well as our application of the hermeneutic circle; we also consider implications for IPA research. Our multi-vocal approach to analysis requires us to work in a much more integrative manner than is generally represented in IPA literature. Explicitly attending to multiple hermeneutics in focus group situations provides additional insights into the social and cultural contexts within which participants’ experiences exist. This article discusses how the inclusion of multiple hermeneutics adds richness and robustness to IPA.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"25 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320947571","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44473404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 13

Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis 优化关键评估技能方案（CASP）工具在定性证据综合中的质量评估价值

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320947559

H. Long, D. French, J. Brooks

{"title":"Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis","authors":"H. Long, D. French, J. Brooks","doi":"10.1177/2632084320947559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320947559","url":null,"abstract":"The value of qualitative evidence synthesis for informing healthcare policy and practice within evidence-based medicine is increasingly recognised. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding how to judge the methodological quality of qualitative studies being synthesised and debates around the extent to which such assessment is possible and appropriate. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool is the most commonly used tool for quality appraisal in health-related qualitative evidence syntheses, with endorsement from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. The tool is recommended for novice qualitative researchers, but there is little existing guidance on its application. This article considers issues related to the suitability and usability of the CASP tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis in order to support and improve future appraisal exercises framed by the tool. We reflect on our practical experience of using the tool in a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. We discuss why it is worth considering a study’s underlying theoretical, ontological and epistemological framework and how this could be incorporated into the tool by way of a novel question. We consider how particular features of the tool may impact its interpretation, the appraisal results and the subsequent synthesis. We discuss how to use quality appraisal results to inform the next stages of evidence synthesis and present a novel approach to organising the synthesis, whereby studies deemed to be of higher quality contribute relatively more to the synthesis. We propose tool modifications, user guidance, and areas for future methodological research.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"31 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320947559","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48216060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 314

Effects of treatment classifications in network meta-analysis 治疗分类在网络荟萃分析中的作用

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320932756

Aiwen Xing, Lifeng Lin

{"title":"Effects of treatment classifications in network meta-analysis","authors":"Aiwen Xing, Lifeng Lin","doi":"10.1177/2632084320932756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320932756","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives Network meta-analysis is a popular tool to simultaneously compare multiple treatments and improve treatment effect estimates. However, no widely accepted guidelines are available to classify the treatment nodes in a network meta-analysis, and the node-making process was often insufficiently reported. We aim at empirically examining the impact of different treatment classifications on network meta-analysis results. Methods We collected nine published network meta-analyses with various disease outcomes; each contained some similar treatments that may be lumped. The Bayesian random-effects model was applied to these network meta-analyses before and after lumping the similar treatments. We estimated the odds ratios and their 95% credible intervals in the original and lumped network meta-analyses. We used the adjusted deviance information criterion to assess the model performance in the lumped network meta-analyses, and used the ratios of credible interval lengths and ratios of odds ratios to quantitatively evaluate the estimates’ changes due to lumping. In addition, the unrelated mean effect model was applied to examine the extents of evidence inconsistency. Results The estimated odds ratios of many treatment comparisons had noticeable changes due to lumping; many of their precisions were substantially improved. The deviance information criterion values reduced after lumping similar treatments in seven (78%) network meta-analyses, indicating better model performance. Substantial evidence inconsistency was detected in only one network meta-analysis. Conclusions Different ways of classifying treatment nodes may substantially affect network meta-analysis results. Including many insufficiently compared treatments and analysing them as separate nodes may not yield more precise estimates. Researchers should report the node-making process in detail and investigate the results’ robustness to different ways of classifying treatments.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"12 - 24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320932756","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49548695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Reporting of placebo medication descriptors in randomised controlled trials: A review of three medical journals 随机对照试验中安慰剂药物描述符的报告：对三种医学期刊的综述

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320932757

M. Watson, C. Arundel, Laura Clark, L. Cook, I. Sbizzera

{"title":"Reporting of placebo medication descriptors in randomised controlled trials: A review of three medical journals","authors":"M. Watson, C. Arundel, Laura Clark, L. Cook, I. Sbizzera","doi":"10.1177/2632084320932757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320932757","url":null,"abstract":"Clinical trials involving a placebo enable researchers to determine the effectiveness of a product; however, ensuring a placebo matches an active treatment takes great consideration, time and costs. We aimed to assess the reporting quality of blinding descriptions for placebo medication treatments and consider this in relation to funding support (commercial or non-commercial). The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA); the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for randomised clinical trials, and 117 papers involving a placebo medication, published between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017, were extracted. The data were analysed for the number of publications reporting characteristics of placebo treatments, frequency of the characteristics and source of funding. Three quarters of the articles reported at least one characteristic of the placebo. The Lancet and JAMA consistently had this information present; however, this was observed less in the NEJM. The most common characteristic was ‘matching placebo’, followed by contents of the placebo, packaging and appearance. Texture, taste and smell were least reported. Within those supported by commercial funding, two-thirds reported at least one characteristic of the placebo treatment, whilst almost all of the articles without commercial funding reported at least one characteristic. Efforts are being made to include descriptions of blinded medication; however, inconsistencies suggest that guidelines are not always being followed, and more can be done to improve reporting. Future research should focus on the reasons for inadequate recording and aim to reduce the inconsistencies observed.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"11 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320932757","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48114166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Editorial 社论

Research methods in medicine & health sciences Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI: 10.1177/2632084320951373

J. Gagnier

{"title":"Editorial","authors":"J. Gagnier","doi":"10.1177/2632084320951373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320951373","url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the inaugural issue of Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences, a new journal from SAGE publishing. I am very pleased to be the first Editor in Chief of the Journal and am excited that we research methodologists have a new reputable venue in which to publish our important research. Sound methods are a necessary foundation of all research. The aims and scope of our journal are as follows: Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences is a peer reviewed journal, publishing rigorous research on established “gold standard” methods and new cutting edge research methods in the health sciences and clinical medicine. The journal is structured around the following sections: Research Concepts and Theory; Epidemiology and Study Design; Experimental Study Methodology; Observational Study Methodology: Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis; Measurement Tools; Data Collection and Curation; Statistics and Data Analysis; Ethical and Legal Considerations in Research and Medicine; and Journalology. Stateof-the art papers are selectively commissioned by out international panel of expert Topic Editors for consideration in the journal and ad hoc submissions are of course also welcome. The journal will be built up over time to become a comprehensive resource for all relevant methods for medicine and health sciences written by experts in the field. Our journal is open access and has no fees for publication. Please submit your papers and circulate our Journal to your methodologist colleagues. And feel free to contact me directly with your thoughts on our content and suggestions for thematic issues. I look forward to talking with you!","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"1 - 1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2632084320951373","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49585157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0