药物依从性研究的偏倚风险工具:RoBIAS和RoBOAS。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Klarissa A Sinnappah, Dyfrig A Hughes, Sophie L Stocker, Daniel F B Wright
{"title":"药物依从性研究的偏倚风险工具:RoBIAS和RoBOAS。","authors":"Klarissa A Sinnappah, Dyfrig A Hughes, Sophie L Stocker, Daniel F B Wright","doi":"10.1111/bcp.16382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>An unbiased means of documenting medication-taking is important to ensure quality evidence about adherence research and to accurately identify individuals at risk of suboptimal adherence for the development of targeted and effective interventions. Guidance to assist researchers in the understanding of risk of bias when conducting or reviewing adherence research is currently not available. To address this gap, tools to identify and gauge the magnitude of important biases that may impact adherence research have been developed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Risk of Bias tool for Interventional Adherence Studies (RoBIAS) and the Risk of Bias tool for Observational Adherence Studies (RoBOAS) were constructed from a literature review of key adherence guidelines/frameworks, drafted initially through author consensus. The draft bias tools were piloted and evaluated with expert adherence researchers through an online survey platform to assess the internal consistency and agreement in responses, including gather \"free text\" feedback to improve the tool's utility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 121 approached reviewers, only 20 out of the 30 reviewers who consented to participate completed the piloting of the tools. Both tools are structured around four domains relating to: (i) study design, (ii) randomization (RoBIAS tool) and confounding factors (RoBOAS tool), (iii) adherence outcome measurement, and (iv) data analysis. Each domain consists of items/statements, mapped to specific biases relevant to adherence research and study designs, including a domain-based ranking scale to determine the appropriate risk of bias judgement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The tools are intended to have utility when systematically reviewing adherence research and to inform the design of future adherence studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":9251,"journal":{"name":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk of bias tools for medication adherence research: RoBIAS and RoBOAS.\",\"authors\":\"Klarissa A Sinnappah, Dyfrig A Hughes, Sophie L Stocker, Daniel F B Wright\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bcp.16382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>An unbiased means of documenting medication-taking is important to ensure quality evidence about adherence research and to accurately identify individuals at risk of suboptimal adherence for the development of targeted and effective interventions. Guidance to assist researchers in the understanding of risk of bias when conducting or reviewing adherence research is currently not available. To address this gap, tools to identify and gauge the magnitude of important biases that may impact adherence research have been developed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Risk of Bias tool for Interventional Adherence Studies (RoBIAS) and the Risk of Bias tool for Observational Adherence Studies (RoBOAS) were constructed from a literature review of key adherence guidelines/frameworks, drafted initially through author consensus. The draft bias tools were piloted and evaluated with expert adherence researchers through an online survey platform to assess the internal consistency and agreement in responses, including gather \\\"free text\\\" feedback to improve the tool's utility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 121 approached reviewers, only 20 out of the 30 reviewers who consented to participate completed the piloting of the tools. Both tools are structured around four domains relating to: (i) study design, (ii) randomization (RoBIAS tool) and confounding factors (RoBOAS tool), (iii) adherence outcome measurement, and (iv) data analysis. Each domain consists of items/statements, mapped to specific biases relevant to adherence research and study designs, including a domain-based ranking scale to determine the appropriate risk of bias judgement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The tools are intended to have utility when systematically reviewing adherence research and to inform the design of future adherence studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.16382\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.16382","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:一种公正的记录药物服用的方法对于确保依从性研究的质量证据和准确识别有不理想依从性风险的个体对于制定有针对性和有效的干预措施非常重要。在进行或审查依从性研究时,帮助研究人员了解偏倚风险的指导目前尚无。为了解决这一差距,已经开发出工具来识别和衡量可能影响依从性研究的重要偏差的程度。方法:介入依从性研究的偏倚风险工具(RoBIAS)和观察性依从性研究的偏倚风险工具(RoBOAS)是根据主要依从性指南/框架的文献综述构建的,这些指南/框架最初是通过作者共识起草的。通过一个在线调查平台,专家依从性研究人员对偏见工具草案进行了试点和评估,以评估内部的一致性和一致性,包括收集“自由文本”反馈,以提高工具的实用性。结果:在121位接近的审稿人中,30位同意参与的审稿人中只有20位完成了工具的试验。这两种工具都围绕四个领域进行构建,这些领域涉及:(i)研究设计,(ii)随机化(RoBIAS工具)和混杂因素(RoBOAS工具),(iii)依从性结果测量和(iv)数据分析。每个领域由项目/陈述组成,映射到与依从性研究和研究设计相关的特定偏差,包括基于领域的排名量表,以确定适当的偏见判断风险。结论:这些工具在系统地回顾依从性研究时具有实用性,并为未来依从性研究的设计提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk of bias tools for medication adherence research: RoBIAS and RoBOAS.

Aims: An unbiased means of documenting medication-taking is important to ensure quality evidence about adherence research and to accurately identify individuals at risk of suboptimal adherence for the development of targeted and effective interventions. Guidance to assist researchers in the understanding of risk of bias when conducting or reviewing adherence research is currently not available. To address this gap, tools to identify and gauge the magnitude of important biases that may impact adherence research have been developed.

Methods: The Risk of Bias tool for Interventional Adherence Studies (RoBIAS) and the Risk of Bias tool for Observational Adherence Studies (RoBOAS) were constructed from a literature review of key adherence guidelines/frameworks, drafted initially through author consensus. The draft bias tools were piloted and evaluated with expert adherence researchers through an online survey platform to assess the internal consistency and agreement in responses, including gather "free text" feedback to improve the tool's utility.

Results: Of the 121 approached reviewers, only 20 out of the 30 reviewers who consented to participate completed the piloting of the tools. Both tools are structured around four domains relating to: (i) study design, (ii) randomization (RoBIAS tool) and confounding factors (RoBOAS tool), (iii) adherence outcome measurement, and (iv) data analysis. Each domain consists of items/statements, mapped to specific biases relevant to adherence research and study designs, including a domain-based ranking scale to determine the appropriate risk of bias judgement.

Conclusions: The tools are intended to have utility when systematically reviewing adherence research and to inform the design of future adherence studies.

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
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
419
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the British Pharmacological Society, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology features papers and reports on all aspects of drug action in humans: review articles, mini review articles, original papers, commentaries, editorials and letters. The Journal enjoys a wide readership, bridging the gap between the medical profession, clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry. It also publishes research on new methods, new drugs and new approaches to treatment. The Journal is recognised as one of the leading publications in its field. It is online only, publishes open access research through its OnlineOpen programme and is published monthly.
×
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