Alvin Ho-Ting Li1, Sonia M Thomas1, Alexandra Farag2, Mark Duffett3, Amit X Garg4, Kyla L Naylor5. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and. 3. Departments of Pediatrics and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and. 4. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; kyla.naylor@lhsc.on.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Survey research is an important research method used to determine individuals' attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors; however, as with other research methods, inadequate reporting threatens the validity of results. This study aimed to describe the quality of reporting of surveys published between 2001 and 2011 in the field of nephrology. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The top nephrology journals were systematically reviewed (2001-2011: American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, and Kidney International; 2006-2011: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology) for studies whose primary objective was to collect and report survey results. Included were nephrology journals with a heavy focus on clinical research and high impact factors. All titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. Surveys were excluded if they were part of a multimethod study, evaluated only psychometric characteristics, or used semi-structured interviews. Information was collected on survey and respondent characteristics, questionnaire development (e.g., pilot testing), psychometric characteristics (e.g., validity and reliability), survey methods used to optimize response rate (e.g., system of multiple contacts), and response rate. RESULTS: After a screening of 19,970 citations, 216 full-text articles were reviewed and 102 surveys were included. Approximately 85% of studies reported a response rate. Almost half of studies (46%) discussed how they developed their questionnaire and only a quarter of studies (28%) mentioned the validity or reliability of the questionnaire. The only characteristic that improved over the years was the proportion of articles reporting missing data (2001-2004: 46.4%; 2005-2008: 61.9%; and 2009-2011: 84.8%; respectively) (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of survey reporting in nephrology journals remains suboptimal. In particular, reporting of the validity and reliability of the questionnaire must be improved. Guidelines to improve survey reporting and increase transparency are clearly needed.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Survey research is an important research method used to determine individuals' attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors; however, as with other research methods, inadequate reporting threatens the validity of results. This study aimed to describe the quality of reporting of surveys published between 2001 and 2011 in the field of nephrology. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The top nephrology journals were systematically reviewed (2001-2011: American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, and Kidney International; 2006-2011: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology) for studies whose primary objective was to collect and report survey results. Included were nephrology journals with a heavy focus on clinical research and high impact factors. All titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. Surveys were excluded if they were part of a multimethod study, evaluated only psychometric characteristics, or used semi-structured interviews. Information was collected on survey and respondent characteristics, questionnaire development (e.g., pilot testing), psychometric characteristics (e.g., validity and reliability), survey methods used to optimize response rate (e.g., system of multiple contacts), and response rate. RESULTS: After a screening of 19,970 citations, 216 full-text articles were reviewed and 102 surveys were included. Approximately 85% of studies reported a response rate. Almost half of studies (46%) discussed how they developed their questionnaire and only a quarter of studies (28%) mentioned the validity or reliability of the questionnaire. The only characteristic that improved over the years was the proportion of articles reporting missing data (2001-2004: 46.4%; 2005-2008: 61.9%; and 2009-2011: 84.8%; respectively) (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of survey reporting in nephrology journals remains suboptimal. In particular, reporting of the validity and reliability of the questionnaire must be improved. Guidelines to improve survey reporting and increase transparency are clearly needed.
Authors: D G Altman; K F Schulz; D Moher; M Egger; F Davidoff; D Elbourne; P C Gøtzsche; T Lang Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-04-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Rachel A Nakash; Jane L Hutton; Ellen C Jørstad-Stein; Simon Gates; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-02-23 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Lavinia Bianco; Salvatore Raffa; Paolo Fornelli; Rita Mancini; Angela Gabriele; Francesco Medici; Claudia Battista; Stefania Greco; Giuseppe Croce; Aldo Germani; Simona Petrucci; Paolo Anibaldi; Valerio Bianco; Mario Ronchetti; Giorgio Banchieri; Christian Napoli; Maria Piane Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Akash Sharma; Nguyen Tran Minh Duc; Tai Luu Lam Thang; Nguyen Hai Nam; Sze Jia Ng; Kirellos Said Abbas; Nguyen Tien Huy; Ana Marušić; Christine L Paul; Janette Kwok; Juntra Karbwang; Chiara de Waure; Frances J Drummond; Yoshiyuki Kizawa; Erik Taal; Joeri Vermeulen; Gillian H M Lee; Adam Gyedu; Kien Gia To; Martin L Verra; Évelyne M Jacqz-Aigrain; Wouter K G Leclercq; Simo T Salminen; Cathy Donald Sherbourne; Barbara Mintzes; Sergi Lozano; Ulrich S Tran; Mitsuaki Matsui; Mohammad Karamouzian Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 6.473