乳腺整形外科定性研究报告质量的系统评价

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Plastic surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-04 DOI:10.1177/22925503231184266
Caroline Hircock, Cameron F Leveille, Jeffrey Chen, Xue-Wei Lin, Rafael P Lansang, Patrick J Kim, Peter W Huan, Lucas Gallo, Achilles Thoma
{"title":"乳腺整形外科定性研究报告质量的系统评价","authors":"Caroline Hircock, Cameron F Leveille, Jeffrey Chen, Xue-Wei Lin, Rafael P Lansang, Patrick J Kim, Peter W Huan, Lucas Gallo, Achilles Thoma","doi":"10.1177/22925503231184266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b>Qualitative research incorporates patients' voices into scientific literature. To date, there has been no formal review of qualitative research in plastic surgery. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of \"breast specific\" plastic surgery qualitative research. Secondary objectives were to record study methodology and examine associations between reporting quality and publication/journal characteristics. <b>Methods:</b> MEDLINE, Embase, Psychinfo, and PubMed were searched to identify qualitative studies in breast plastic surgery. Findings were presented with descriptive analysis. Reporting quality was evaluated using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), a 21-item checklist. <b>Results:</b> Eighty studies were included. The median SRQR score was 17/21 (range: 6-21). The lowest reported SRQR items were <i>qualitative approach</i> (n = 29/80, 36%) and <i>data collection method</i> (n = 36/80, 45%). Nine (11%) studies described following a reporting guideline. Articles published in nursing journals had the highest average SRQR scores (18.4/21). There was no significant difference between studies published before or after the publication of SRQR (<i>P </i>= .06). Eighty-six percent of studies focused on patient experiences with breast reconstruction (n = 69/80). <b>Conclusions:</b> The introduction of the SRQR has not led to significant improvement in the reporting of qualitative research. Rationale for methodology was frequently missing. We recommend that investigators conducting qualitative research in breast plastic surgery ensure they provide a rationale for their methodology and become familiar with the SRQR reporting guideline.</p>","PeriodicalId":20206,"journal":{"name":"Plastic surgery","volume":" ","pages":"44-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11770735/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review of the Reporting Quality of Qualitative Research in Breast Plastic Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Caroline Hircock, Cameron F Leveille, Jeffrey Chen, Xue-Wei Lin, Rafael P Lansang, Patrick J Kim, Peter W Huan, Lucas Gallo, Achilles Thoma\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/22925503231184266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b>Qualitative research incorporates patients' voices into scientific literature. To date, there has been no formal review of qualitative research in plastic surgery. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of \\\"breast specific\\\" plastic surgery qualitative research. Secondary objectives were to record study methodology and examine associations between reporting quality and publication/journal characteristics. <b>Methods:</b> MEDLINE, Embase, Psychinfo, and PubMed were searched to identify qualitative studies in breast plastic surgery. Findings were presented with descriptive analysis. Reporting quality was evaluated using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), a 21-item checklist. <b>Results:</b> Eighty studies were included. The median SRQR score was 17/21 (range: 6-21). The lowest reported SRQR items were <i>qualitative approach</i> (n = 29/80, 36%) and <i>data collection method</i> (n = 36/80, 45%). Nine (11%) studies described following a reporting guideline. Articles published in nursing journals had the highest average SRQR scores (18.4/21). There was no significant difference between studies published before or after the publication of SRQR (<i>P </i>= .06). Eighty-six percent of studies focused on patient experiences with breast reconstruction (n = 69/80). <b>Conclusions:</b> The introduction of the SRQR has not led to significant improvement in the reporting of qualitative research. Rationale for methodology was frequently missing. We recommend that investigators conducting qualitative research in breast plastic surgery ensure they provide a rationale for their methodology and become familiar with the SRQR reporting guideline.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Plastic surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"44-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11770735/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Plastic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503231184266\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503231184266","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:定性研究将患者的声音纳入科学文献。到目前为止,还没有对整形外科的定性研究进行正式审查。本研究的主要目的是评估“乳腺特异性”整形外科定性研究的报告质量。次要目标是记录研究方法,并检查报告质量与出版物/期刊特征之间的关系。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase、Psychinfo和PubMed,以确定乳腺整形外科的定性研究。研究结果采用描述性分析。报告质量使用报告定性研究标准(SRQR)进行评估,该标准是一份21项清单。结果:纳入80项研究。SRQR评分中位数为17/21(范围:6-21)。报告的最低SRQR项目为定性方法(n = 29/80,36%)和数据收集方法(n = 36/80、45%)。九项(11%)研究按照报告指南进行了描述。在护理期刊上发表的文章的SRQR平均得分最高(18.4/21),在SRQR发表前后发表的研究之间没有显著差异(P = .06)。86%的研究集中在乳房重建的患者体验上(n = 69/80)。结论:SRQR的引入并没有导致定性研究报告的显著改进。方法论的基本原理经常缺失。我们建议对乳腺整形外科进行定性研究的研究人员确保他们为自己的方法提供基本原理,并熟悉SRQR报告指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Systematic Review of the Reporting Quality of Qualitative Research in Breast Plastic Surgery.

Background:Qualitative research incorporates patients' voices into scientific literature. To date, there has been no formal review of qualitative research in plastic surgery. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of "breast specific" plastic surgery qualitative research. Secondary objectives were to record study methodology and examine associations between reporting quality and publication/journal characteristics. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Psychinfo, and PubMed were searched to identify qualitative studies in breast plastic surgery. Findings were presented with descriptive analysis. Reporting quality was evaluated using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), a 21-item checklist. Results: Eighty studies were included. The median SRQR score was 17/21 (range: 6-21). The lowest reported SRQR items were qualitative approach (n = 29/80, 36%) and data collection method (n = 36/80, 45%). Nine (11%) studies described following a reporting guideline. Articles published in nursing journals had the highest average SRQR scores (18.4/21). There was no significant difference between studies published before or after the publication of SRQR (P = .06). Eighty-six percent of studies focused on patient experiences with breast reconstruction (n = 69/80). Conclusions: The introduction of the SRQR has not led to significant improvement in the reporting of qualitative research. Rationale for methodology was frequently missing. We recommend that investigators conducting qualitative research in breast plastic surgery ensure they provide a rationale for their methodology and become familiar with the SRQR reporting guideline.

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
Plastic surgery
Plastic surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Plastic Surgery (Chirurgie Plastique) is the official journal of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Group for the Advancement of Microsurgery, and the Canadian Society for Surgery of the Hand. It serves as a major venue for Canadian research, society guidelines, and continuing medical education.
×
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