Monica B Pagano1, Nancy M Dunbar2, Alan Tinmouth3, Torunn Oveland Apelseth4, Miguel Lozano5, Claudia S Cohn6, Simon J Stanworth7,8,9. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Transfusion Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 3. Departments of Medicine and Laboratory Medicine & Pathology, University of Ottawa, University of Ottawa Centre for Transfusion Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4. Laboratory of Clinical Biochemistry and Department of Immunology and Transfusion Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 5. Department of Hemotherapy and Hemostasis, University Clinic Hospital, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 7. Department of Haematology, Oxford University Hospitals. 8. NHS Blood and Transplant, John Radcliffe Hospital. 9. Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surveys are a common tool used to gather information about practices across many medical specialties. The quality of survey reporting impacts the strength of any conclusions. Thorough and accurate reporting of survey-based research is critical for evaluation of the validity, reliability, and generalizability of the results. The objective of this study was to appraise the quality of recently reported surveys in transfusion medicine (TM). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies evaluating clinical practices in TM that used a questionnaire as the research tool and were published between January 2001 and November 2017. Manuscripts that met eligible criteria were appraised using a modified Survey Reporting Guideline questionnaire. RESULTS: The search identified 1632 references, from which 54 abstracts met eligibility criteria for analysis. Only seven (13%) manuscripts reported reliability and validity of the survey tool, 26 (48%) provided a description of the survey population and sample frame, and 11 (20%) indicated the representativeness of the underlying population. Additional reporting limitations included 31 (57%) manuscripts reporting the response rate calculation, two (4%) the analysis of nonresponse error, nine (17%) the method description for handling of missing data, 11 (20%) the analysis of responder and nonresponder characteristics, and 23 (43%) explicitly discussed the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: Our findings document quality deficiencies in the reporting of research conducted using surveys in TM. Validated guidelines for the reporting of survey-based clinical research should be developed and applied to improve the quality of survey reporting in TM.
BACKGROUND: Surveys are a common tool used to gather information about practices across many medical specialties. The quality of survey reporting impacts the strength of any conclusions. Thorough and accurate reporting of survey-based research is critical for evaluation of the validity, reliability, and generalizability of the results. The objective of this study was to appraise the quality of recently reported surveys in transfusion medicine (TM). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies evaluating clinical practices in TM that used a questionnaire as the research tool and were published between January 2001 and November 2017. Manuscripts that met eligible criteria were appraised using a modified Survey Reporting Guideline questionnaire. RESULTS: The search identified 1632 references, from which 54 abstracts met eligibility criteria for analysis. Only seven (13%) manuscripts reported reliability and validity of the survey tool, 26 (48%) provided a description of the survey population and sample frame, and 11 (20%) indicated the representativeness of the underlying population. Additional reporting limitations included 31 (57%) manuscripts reporting the response rate calculation, two (4%) the analysis of nonresponse error, nine (17%) the method description for handling of missing data, 11 (20%) the analysis of responder and nonresponder characteristics, and 23 (43%) explicitly discussed the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: Our findings document quality deficiencies in the reporting of research conducted using surveys in TM. Validated guidelines for the reporting of survey-based clinical research should be developed and applied to improve the quality of survey reporting in TM.
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