确定体外研究的评估标准:方法和项目库。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Paul Whaley, Robyn B Blain, Derek Draper, Andrew A Rooney, Vickie R Walker, Stephen Wattam, Rob Wright, Carlijn R Hooijmans
{"title":"确定体外研究的评估标准:方法和项目库。","authors":"Paul Whaley, Robyn B Blain, Derek Draper, Andrew A Rooney, Vickie R Walker, Stephen Wattam, Rob Wright, Carlijn R Hooijmans","doi":"10.1093/toxsci/kfae083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To support the development of appraisal tools for assessing the quality of in vitro studies, we developed a method for literature-based discovery of study assessment criteria, used the method to create an item bank of assessment criteria of potential relevance to in vitro studies, and analyzed the item bank to discern and critique current approaches for appraisal of in vitro studies. We searched four research indexes and included any document that identified itself as an appraisal tool for in vitro studies, was a systematic review that included a critical appraisal step, or was a reporting checklist for in vitro studies. We abstracted, normalized, and categorized all criteria applied by the included appraisal tools to create an \"item bank\" database of issues relevant to the assessment of in vitro studies. The resulting item bank consists of 676 unique appraisal concepts from 67 appraisal tools. We believe this item bank is the single most comprehensive resource of its type to date, should be of high utility for future tool development exercises, and provides a robust methodology for grounding tool development in the existing literature. Although we set out to develop an item bank specifically targeting in vitro studies, we found that many of the assessment concepts we discovered are readily applicable to other study designs. Item banks can be of significant value as a resource; however, there are important challenges in developing, maintaining, and extending them of which researchers should be aware.</p>","PeriodicalId":23178,"journal":{"name":"Toxicological Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11424884/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying assessment criteria for in vitro studies: a method and item bank.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Whaley, Robyn B Blain, Derek Draper, Andrew A Rooney, Vickie R Walker, Stephen Wattam, Rob Wright, Carlijn R Hooijmans\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/toxsci/kfae083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To support the development of appraisal tools for assessing the quality of in vitro studies, we developed a method for literature-based discovery of study assessment criteria, used the method to create an item bank of assessment criteria of potential relevance to in vitro studies, and analyzed the item bank to discern and critique current approaches for appraisal of in vitro studies. We searched four research indexes and included any document that identified itself as an appraisal tool for in vitro studies, was a systematic review that included a critical appraisal step, or was a reporting checklist for in vitro studies. We abstracted, normalized, and categorized all criteria applied by the included appraisal tools to create an \\\"item bank\\\" database of issues relevant to the assessment of in vitro studies. The resulting item bank consists of 676 unique appraisal concepts from 67 appraisal tools. We believe this item bank is the single most comprehensive resource of its type to date, should be of high utility for future tool development exercises, and provides a robust methodology for grounding tool development in the existing literature. Although we set out to develop an item bank specifically targeting in vitro studies, we found that many of the assessment concepts we discovered are readily applicable to other study designs. Item banks can be of significant value as a resource; however, there are important challenges in developing, maintaining, and extending them of which researchers should be aware.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Toxicological Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11424884/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Toxicological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae083\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae083","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了支持体外研究质量评估工具的开发,我们开发了一种基于文献发现研究评估标准的方法,使用该方法创建了一个与体外研究潜在相关的评估标准项目库,并对项目库进行了分析,以鉴别和批判当前的体外研究评估方法。我们检索了四种研究索引,收录了任何自称是体外研究评估工具、包含关键评估步骤的系统综述或体外研究报告核对表的文献。我们对收录的评估工具所采用的所有标准进行了摘录、规范化和分类,以创建体外研究评估相关问题的 "项目库 "数据库。由此产生的项目库包括来自 67 种评估工具的 676 个独特的评估概念。我们相信,这个项目库是迄今为止同类资源中最全面的一个,对未来的工具开发工作具有很高的实用性,并为现有文献中的工具开发提供了一个强有力的方法论基础。虽然我们的出发点是开发一个专门针对体外研究的项目库,但我们发现,我们发现的许多评估概念很容易适用于其他研究设计。项目库作为一种资源具有重要价值;但是,在开发、维护和扩展项目库的过程中也存在一些重要挑战,研究人员应该对此有所了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identifying assessment criteria for in vitro studies: a method and item bank.

To support the development of appraisal tools for assessing the quality of in vitro studies, we developed a method for literature-based discovery of study assessment criteria, used the method to create an item bank of assessment criteria of potential relevance to in vitro studies, and analyzed the item bank to discern and critique current approaches for appraisal of in vitro studies. We searched four research indexes and included any document that identified itself as an appraisal tool for in vitro studies, was a systematic review that included a critical appraisal step, or was a reporting checklist for in vitro studies. We abstracted, normalized, and categorized all criteria applied by the included appraisal tools to create an "item bank" database of issues relevant to the assessment of in vitro studies. The resulting item bank consists of 676 unique appraisal concepts from 67 appraisal tools. We believe this item bank is the single most comprehensive resource of its type to date, should be of high utility for future tool development exercises, and provides a robust methodology for grounding tool development in the existing literature. Although we set out to develop an item bank specifically targeting in vitro studies, we found that many of the assessment concepts we discovered are readily applicable to other study designs. Item banks can be of significant value as a resource; however, there are important challenges in developing, maintaining, and extending them of which researchers should be aware.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Toxicological Sciences
Toxicological Sciences 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
7.90%
发文量
118
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The mission of Toxicological Sciences, the official journal of the Society of Toxicology, is to publish a broad spectrum of impactful research in the field of toxicology. The primary focus of Toxicological Sciences is on original research articles. The journal also provides expert insight via contemporary and systematic reviews, as well as forum articles and editorial content that addresses important topics in the field. The scope of Toxicological Sciences is focused on a broad spectrum of impactful toxicological research that will advance the multidisciplinary field of toxicology ranging from basic research to model development and application, and decision making. Submissions will include diverse technologies and approaches including, but not limited to: bioinformatics and computational biology, biochemistry, exposure science, histopathology, mass spectrometry, molecular biology, population-based sciences, tissue and cell-based systems, and whole-animal studies. Integrative approaches that combine realistic exposure scenarios with impactful analyses that move the field forward are encouraged.
×
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