Tarek Turk1, Mohamed Tamer Elhady2, Sherwet Rashed3, Mariam Abdelkhalek4, Somia Ahmed Nasef5, Ashraf Mohamed Khallaf6, Abdelrahman Tarek Mohammed7, Andrew Wassef Attia8, Purushottam Adhikari9, Mohamed Alsabbahi Amin10, Kenji Hirayama11, Nguyen Tien Huy12,13. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria. 2. Zagazig University Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Sharkia, Egypt. 3. Harvard T.H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States of America. 4. Medical Microbiology and Immunology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt. 5. Maternity and Children Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. 6. Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. 7. Faculty of Medicine, Alazhar University, Cairo, Egypt. 8. Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt. 9. Gandaki Medical College, Pokhara, Nepal. 10. Zagazig University Hospital, Department of Plastic Surgery, Sharkia, Egypt. 11. Department of Immunogenetics, Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN), Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Sakamoto, Nagasaki, Japan. 12. Evidence Based Medicine Research Group & Faculty of Applied Sciences, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 13. Department of Clinical Product Development, Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN), Nagasaki University, Sakamoto, Nagasaki, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several influential aspects of survey research have been under-investigated and there is a lack of guidance on reporting survey studies, especially web-based projects. In this review, we aim to investigate the reporting practices and quality of both web- and non-web-based survey studies to enhance the quality of reporting medical evidence that is derived from survey studies and to maximize the efficiency of its consumption. METHODS: Reporting practices and quality of 100 random web- and 100 random non-web-based articles published from 2004 to 2016 were assessed using the SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE (SURGE). The CHERRIES guideline was also used to assess the reporting quality of Web-based studies. RESULTS: Our results revealed a potential gap in the reporting of many necessary checklist items in both web-based and non-web-based survey studies including development, description and testing of the questionnaire, the advertisement and administration of the questionnaire, sample representativeness and response rates, incentives, informed consent, and methods of statistical analysis. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm the presence of major discrepancies in reporting results of survey-based studies. This can be attributed to the lack of availability of updated universal checklists for quality of reporting standards. We have summarized our findings in a table that may serve as a roadmap for future guidelines and checklists, which will hopefully include all types and all aspects of survey research.
BACKGROUND: Several influential aspects of survey research have been under-investigated and there is a lack of guidance on reporting survey studies, especially web-based projects. In this review, we aim to investigate the reporting practices and quality of both web- and non-web-based survey studies to enhance the quality of reporting medical evidence that is derived from survey studies and to maximize the efficiency of its consumption. METHODS: Reporting practices and quality of 100 random web- and 100 random non-web-based articles published from 2004 to 2016 were assessed using the SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE (SURGE). The CHERRIES guideline was also used to assess the reporting quality of Web-based studies. RESULTS: Our results revealed a potential gap in the reporting of many necessary checklist items in both web-based and non-web-based survey studies including development, description and testing of the questionnaire, the advertisement and administration of the questionnaire, sample representativeness and response rates, incentives, informed consent, and methods of statistical analysis. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm the presence of major discrepancies in reporting results of survey-based studies. This can be attributed to the lack of availability of updated universal checklists for quality of reporting standards. We have summarized our findings in a table that may serve as a roadmap for future guidelines and checklists, which will hopefully include all types and all aspects of survey research.
Authors: E McColl; A Jacoby; L Thomas; J Soutter; C Bamford; N Steen; R Thomas; E Harvey; A Garratt; J Bond Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.014
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
Authors: Robin W M Vernooij; Andrea Juliana Sanabria; Ivan Solà; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Laura Martínez García Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Prashant Mahajan; Chong Shu-Ling; Camilo Gutierrez; Emily White; Benjamin A Y Cher; Elizabeth Freiheit; Apoorva Belle; Johanna Kaartinen; Vijaya Arun Kumar; Paul M Middleton; Chip Jin Ng; Daniel Osei-Kwame; Dominik Roth; Tej Prakash Sinja; Sagar Galwankar; Michele Nypaver; Nathan Kuppermann; Ulf EKelund Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2021-08-21
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
Authors: Søren F Birkeland; Anders K Haakonsson; Susanne S Pedersen; Nina Rottmann; Michael J Barry; Sören Möller Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Athanasia Trakada; Pantelis T Nikolaidis; Marilia Dos Santos Andrade; Paulo José Puccinelli; Nicholas-Tiberio Economou; Paschalis Steiropoulos; Beat Knechtle; Georgia Trakada Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-05 Impact factor: 3.390