• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews

JC. Stone, TH. Barker, E. Aromataris, M. Ritskes-Hoitinga, K. Sears, M. Klugar, J. Leonardi-Bee, Z. Munn

. 2023 ; 21 (3) : 472-477. [pub] 20230301

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23003904

The foundations for critical appraisal of literature have largely progressed through the development of epidemiologic research methods and the use of research to inform medical teaching and practice. This practical application of research is referred to as evidence-based medicine and has delivered a standard for the health care profession where clinicians are equally as engaged in conducting scientific research as they are in the practice of delivering treatments. Evidence-based medicine, now referred to as evidence-based health care, has generally been operationalized through empirically supported treatments, whereby the choice of treatments is substantiated by scientific support, usually by means of an evidence synthesis. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term "risk of bias" assessment.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23003904
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230425140936.0
007      
ta
008      
230418s2023 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.11124/JBIES-22-00434 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)36882947
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Stone, Jennifer C $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
245    10
$a From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews / $c JC. Stone, TH. Barker, E. Aromataris, M. Ritskes-Hoitinga, K. Sears, M. Klugar, J. Leonardi-Bee, Z. Munn
520    9_
$a The foundations for critical appraisal of literature have largely progressed through the development of epidemiologic research methods and the use of research to inform medical teaching and practice. This practical application of research is referred to as evidence-based medicine and has delivered a standard for the health care profession where clinicians are equally as engaged in conducting scientific research as they are in the practice of delivering treatments. Evidence-based medicine, now referred to as evidence-based health care, has generally been operationalized through empirically supported treatments, whereby the choice of treatments is substantiated by scientific support, usually by means of an evidence synthesis. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term "risk of bias" assessment.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a zkreslení výsledků (epidemiologie) $7 D015982
650    12
$a výzkumný projekt $7 D012107
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Barker, Timothy Hugh $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
700    1_
$a Aromataris, Edoardo $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
700    1_
$a Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel $u Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands $u Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
700    1_
$a Sears, Kim $u Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
700    1_
$a Klugar, Miloslav $u Czech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Leonardi-Bee, Jo $u Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare, Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
700    1_
$a Munn, Zachary $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
773    0_
$w MED00207800 $t JBI evidence synthesis $x 2689-8381 $g Roč. 21, č. 3 (2023), s. 472-477
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36882947 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230418 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230425140932 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1924514 $s 1190113
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 21 $c 3 $d 472-477 $e 20230301 $i 2689-8381 $m JBI evidence synthesis $n JBI Evid Synth $x MED00207800
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230418

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace