Literature DB >> 17041128

Inaccessible novel questionnaires in published medical research: hidden methods, hidden costs.

Lisa M Schilling1, Katarzyna Kozak, Kristy Lundahl, Robert P Dellavalle.   

Abstract

Although critical analysis of survey research is limited when reviewers and readers cannot view a study's questionnaire, access to novel questionnaires used in published research has not been systematically examined. The authors identified publications reporting the results of novel questionnaires in three medical journals (JAMA, The New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet) in January 2000-May 2003 and searched portable document format (PDF) versions of the studies for the complete questionnaire or a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) providing access to the questionnaire. When the questionnaire was not provided in the publication or a published URL, the authors requested it from the corresponding author in writing up to three times over a 6-week period. Of 93 publications with novel questionnaires, four printed the questionnaire in the article and three provided online access. Corresponding authors failed to provide questionnaires for 37 of 81 (46%) studies. Novel questionnaires used in published research are frequently not available to readers or researchers. Policies that improve access to novel questionnaires will allow better assessment of study results, reduce duplicated efforts, and improve authorship attribution for questionnaire design.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17041128     DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwj349

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  7 in total

Review 1.  A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians.

Authors:  Karen E A Burns; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Maureen O Meade; Neill K J Adhikari; Tasnim Sinuff; Deborah J Cook
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Quality of survey reporting in nephrology journals: a methodologic review.

Authors:  Alvin Ho-Ting Li; Sonia M Thomas; Alexandra Farag; Mark Duffett; Amit X Garg; Kyla L Naylor
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 8.237

3.  Reporting guidelines for survey research: an analysis of published guidance and reporting practices.

Authors:  Carol Bennett; Sara Khangura; Jamie C Brehaut; Ian D Graham; David Moher; Beth K Potter; Jeremy M Grimshaw
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2011-08-02       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 4.  The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sibel Vildan Altin; Isabelle Finke; Sibylle Kautz-Freimuth; Stephanie Stock
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Etiological research in pediatric multiple sclerosis: A tool to assess environmental exposures (PEDiatric Italian Genetic and enviRonment ExposurE Questionnaire).

Authors:  Silvy Pilotto; Jessica Gencarelli; Stefania Bova; Leonardo Gerosa; Damiano Baroncini; Sara Olivotto; Enrico Alfei; Mauro Zaffaroni; Agnese Suppiej; Eleonora Cocco; Maria Trojano; Maria Pia Amato; Sandra D'Alfonso; Filippo Martinelli-Boneschi; Emmanuelle Waubant; Angelo Ghezzi; Roberto Bergamaschi; Maura Pugliatti
Journal:  Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin       Date:  2021-12-01

6.  Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Paul Glasziou; Carl Heneghan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  EpiBasket: how e-commerce tools can improve epidemiological preparedness.

Authors:  Weijia Xing; Gilles Hejblum; Alain-Jacques Valleron
Journal:  Emerg Health Threats J       Date:  2013-10-31
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.