Literature DB >> 16578923

Rating methodological quality: toward improved assessment and investigation.

Anne Moyer1, John W Finney.   

Abstract

Assessing methodological quality is considered essential in deciding what investigations to include in research syntheses and in detecting potential sources of bias in meta-analytic results. Quality assessment is also useful in characterizing the strengths and limitations of the research in an area of study. Although numerous instruments to measure research quality have been developed, they have lacked empirically-supported components. In addition, different summary quality scales have yielded different findings when they were used to weight treatment effect estimates for the same body of research. Suggestions for developing improved quality instruments include: distinguishing distinct domains of quality, such as internal validity, external validity, the completeness of the study report, and adherence to ethical practices; focusing on individual aspects, rather than domains of quality; and focusing on empirically-verified criteria. Other ways to facilitate the constructive use of quality assessment are to improve and standardize the reporting of research investigations, so that the quality of studies can be more equitably and thoroughly compared, and to identify optimal methods for incorporating study quality ratings into meta-analyses.

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16578923     DOI: 10.1080/08989620500440287

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   2.622


  6 in total

Review 1.  Characteristics and methodological quality of 25 years of research investigating psychosocial interventions for cancer patients.

Authors:  Anne Moyer; Stephanie J Sohl; Sarah K Knapp-Oliver; Stefan Schneider
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2009-03-04       Impact factor: 12.111

2.  Published versus unpublished dissertations in psycho-oncology intervention research.

Authors:  Anne Moyer; Stefan Schneider; Sarah K Knapp-Oliver; Stephanie J Sohl
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.894

Review 3.  Clinical decision support tools for osteoporosis disease management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Monika Kastner; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use.

Authors:  Douglas A Parry; Brittany I Davidson; Craig J R Sewall; Jacob T Fisher; Hannah Mieczkowski; Daniel S Quintana
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-05-17

5.  A Case For a Study Quality Appraisal in Survey Studies in Psychology.

Authors:  Cleo Protogerou; Martin S Hagger
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-01-24

6.  Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Hoang Thi Nam Giang; Ali Mahmoud Ahmed; Reem Yousry Fala; Mohamed Magdy Khattab; Mona Hassan Ahmed Othman; Sara Attia Mahmoud Abdelrahman; Le Phuong Thao; Ahmed Elsaid Abd Elsamie Gabl; Samar Ahmed Elrashedy; Peter N Lee; Kenji Hirayama; Hosni Salem; Nguyen Tien Huy
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.