Methodological quality(risk of bias)assessment is an important step before study initiation usage.Therefore,accurately judging study type is the first priority,and the choosing proper tool is also important.In this re...Methodological quality(risk of bias)assessment is an important step before study initiation usage.Therefore,accurately judging study type is the first priority,and the choosing proper tool is also important.In this review,we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial(including individual and cluster),animal study,non-randomized interventional studies(including follow-up study,controlled before-and-after study,before-after/pre-post study,uncontrolled longitudinal study,interrupted time series study),cohort study,case-control study,cross-sectional study(including analytical and descriptive),observational case series and case reports,comparative effectiveness research,diagnostic study,health economic evaluation,prediction study(including predictor finding study,prediction model impact study,prognostic prediction model study),qualitative study,outcome measurement instruments(including patient-reported outcome measure development,content validity,structural validity,internal consistency,cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance,reliability,measurement error,criterion validity,hypotheses testing for construct validity,and responsiveness),systematic review and meta-analysis,and clinical practice guideline.The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools.In one word,comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.展开更多
特应性皮炎的疾病严重程度评估是疾病诊治过程中十分重要的方面。评估该病严重程度的方法多种多样,各有利弊,尚缺乏统一性。文中旨在介绍目前常用的几种特应性皮炎严重程度评分方法及应用价值,包括特应性皮炎积分指数(scoring atopic de...特应性皮炎的疾病严重程度评估是疾病诊治过程中十分重要的方面。评估该病严重程度的方法多种多样,各有利弊,尚缺乏统一性。文中旨在介绍目前常用的几种特应性皮炎严重程度评分方法及应用价值,包括特应性皮炎积分指数(scoring atopic dermatitis index,SCORAD)、湿疹面积及严重程度指数(eczema area and severity index,EASI)和研究者总体评分(investigator's global assessment,IGA)等,以期全面了解特应性皮炎的严重程度评估。展开更多
目的探讨言语、空间与听觉质量量表(speech,spatial and qualities of hearing scale,SSQ)用于老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器的效果评估作用。方法以100例老年感音神经性听力损失者(60~90岁)为研究对象,采用横断面研究和前瞻性研究,其中,...目的探讨言语、空间与听觉质量量表(speech,spatial and qualities of hearing scale,SSQ)用于老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器的效果评估作用。方法以100例老年感音神经性听力损失者(60~90岁)为研究对象,采用横断面研究和前瞻性研究,其中,无助听器使用经验者44例(75.8±8.1岁,气导纯音平均听阈59.8±13.3 dB HL)、有助听器使用经验者34例(77.5±6.3岁,气导纯音平均听阈64.5±17.8 dB HL,助听器佩戴时间大于三个月)进行横断面研究;22例(74.3±8.6岁,气导纯音平均听阈58.1±12.6 dB HL)首次配戴助听器者进行前瞻性研究;二组参与横断面研究者进行一次SSQ评估,前瞻性研究组分别在助听前和佩戴助听器1个月后进行二次SSQ评估,均采用面对面问答方式用SSQ量表评估三组受试者在言语理解能力、空间定位能力和声音聆听质量方面的变化。结果横断面研究结果显示,有助听经验组SSQ问卷言语理解(97.29±23.43分)、空间听觉(131.94±19.27分)、声音质量(143.53±20.31分)和总分(372.76±51.92分)均显著高于无助听经验组(分别为58.66±30.13、99.41±37.09、108.09±43.28、266.16±78.18分)。前瞻性研究结果显示,受试者初次佩戴助听器一个月后的SSQ问卷言语理解(106.27±13.86分)、空间听觉(136.00±14.09分)、声音质量(151.73±13.91分)和总分(394.00±34.70分)均显著高于佩戴助听器前(分别为65.64±21.89、115.09±17.17、111.91±25.41、292.64±45.58分),横断面研究和前瞻性研究结果均显示,老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器后在言语理解能力、空间声源定位能力和声音聆听质量方面均有显著改善(P<0.05)。结论SSQ量表可以有效评估老年听力损失患者助听器使用效果;老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器后在言语理解能力、空间定位能力和声音聆听质量方面均有显著提高。展开更多
Patient reported outcome measures(PROMs)provide a valuable means of measuring outcomes subjectively from a patient's perspective,facilitating the assessment of service quality across healthcare providers,and assis...Patient reported outcome measures(PROMs)provide a valuable means of measuring outcomes subjectively from a patient's perspective,facilitating the assessment of service quality across healthcare providers,and assisting patients and clinicians in shared decision making.The primary aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise all historic studies evaluating patient reported quality of life,in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones.The secondary aim was to perform a quality assessment of cholecystectomy-specific PROM-validation studies.A literature review was performed in PubMed,Google ScholarTM,the Cochrane Library,Medline,CINAHL,EMBASE and PsychINFO databases up to September 2017.Study characteristics,PROM-specific details and a bias assessment were summarised for non-validation studies.A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments(COSMIN)analysis was performed to assess the methodological quality of identified PROM-validation studies.Fifty one studies were found to evaluate health-related quality of life(HRQoL)after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Although 94.1%of these studies included PROMs as a primary outcome measure,<20%provided level 1 evidence through randomised controlled trials(RCTs).There was significant variation in the selection and reporting of PROMs,with no studies declaring patient involvement in PROM selection,and 88.2%of studies failing to document the management of missing data points,or non-returned surveys(33.3%).In the 6 PROM-validation studies identified,only 5 psychometric properties were evaluated,the findings of which were limited due to the small number of studies.This systematic review identifies a lack in consistency of study design and PRO reporting in clinical trials.Whilst an increasing number of studies are being performed to evaluate PROs,a lack of adherence to existing PRO administration and reporting guidelines is continuing to negatively affect study quality.We recommend that future clinical tr展开更多
基金supported(in part)by the Entrusted Project of National commission on health and health of China(No.2019099)the National Key Research and Development Plan of China(2016YFC0106300)the Nature Science Foundation of Hubei Province(2019FFB03902)。
文摘Methodological quality(risk of bias)assessment is an important step before study initiation usage.Therefore,accurately judging study type is the first priority,and the choosing proper tool is also important.In this review,we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial(including individual and cluster),animal study,non-randomized interventional studies(including follow-up study,controlled before-and-after study,before-after/pre-post study,uncontrolled longitudinal study,interrupted time series study),cohort study,case-control study,cross-sectional study(including analytical and descriptive),observational case series and case reports,comparative effectiveness research,diagnostic study,health economic evaluation,prediction study(including predictor finding study,prediction model impact study,prognostic prediction model study),qualitative study,outcome measurement instruments(including patient-reported outcome measure development,content validity,structural validity,internal consistency,cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance,reliability,measurement error,criterion validity,hypotheses testing for construct validity,and responsiveness),systematic review and meta-analysis,and clinical practice guideline.The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools.In one word,comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.
文摘特应性皮炎的疾病严重程度评估是疾病诊治过程中十分重要的方面。评估该病严重程度的方法多种多样,各有利弊,尚缺乏统一性。文中旨在介绍目前常用的几种特应性皮炎严重程度评分方法及应用价值,包括特应性皮炎积分指数(scoring atopic dermatitis index,SCORAD)、湿疹面积及严重程度指数(eczema area and severity index,EASI)和研究者总体评分(investigator's global assessment,IGA)等,以期全面了解特应性皮炎的严重程度评估。
文摘目的探讨言语、空间与听觉质量量表(speech,spatial and qualities of hearing scale,SSQ)用于老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器的效果评估作用。方法以100例老年感音神经性听力损失者(60~90岁)为研究对象,采用横断面研究和前瞻性研究,其中,无助听器使用经验者44例(75.8±8.1岁,气导纯音平均听阈59.8±13.3 dB HL)、有助听器使用经验者34例(77.5±6.3岁,气导纯音平均听阈64.5±17.8 dB HL,助听器佩戴时间大于三个月)进行横断面研究;22例(74.3±8.6岁,气导纯音平均听阈58.1±12.6 dB HL)首次配戴助听器者进行前瞻性研究;二组参与横断面研究者进行一次SSQ评估,前瞻性研究组分别在助听前和佩戴助听器1个月后进行二次SSQ评估,均采用面对面问答方式用SSQ量表评估三组受试者在言语理解能力、空间定位能力和声音聆听质量方面的变化。结果横断面研究结果显示,有助听经验组SSQ问卷言语理解(97.29±23.43分)、空间听觉(131.94±19.27分)、声音质量(143.53±20.31分)和总分(372.76±51.92分)均显著高于无助听经验组(分别为58.66±30.13、99.41±37.09、108.09±43.28、266.16±78.18分)。前瞻性研究结果显示,受试者初次佩戴助听器一个月后的SSQ问卷言语理解(106.27±13.86分)、空间听觉(136.00±14.09分)、声音质量(151.73±13.91分)和总分(394.00±34.70分)均显著高于佩戴助听器前(分别为65.64±21.89、115.09±17.17、111.91±25.41、292.64±45.58分),横断面研究和前瞻性研究结果均显示,老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器后在言语理解能力、空间声源定位能力和声音聆听质量方面均有显著改善(P<0.05)。结论SSQ量表可以有效评估老年听力损失患者助听器使用效果;老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器后在言语理解能力、空间定位能力和声音聆听质量方面均有显著提高。
基金the Medical Research Council(grant number MR/K00414X/1)ArthritisResearch UK[grant number 19891].Prita Daliya is a recipient of a Research Fellowship funded by the Royal College of Surgeons of England and EIDO Healthcare Limited.
文摘Patient reported outcome measures(PROMs)provide a valuable means of measuring outcomes subjectively from a patient's perspective,facilitating the assessment of service quality across healthcare providers,and assisting patients and clinicians in shared decision making.The primary aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise all historic studies evaluating patient reported quality of life,in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones.The secondary aim was to perform a quality assessment of cholecystectomy-specific PROM-validation studies.A literature review was performed in PubMed,Google ScholarTM,the Cochrane Library,Medline,CINAHL,EMBASE and PsychINFO databases up to September 2017.Study characteristics,PROM-specific details and a bias assessment were summarised for non-validation studies.A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments(COSMIN)analysis was performed to assess the methodological quality of identified PROM-validation studies.Fifty one studies were found to evaluate health-related quality of life(HRQoL)after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Although 94.1%of these studies included PROMs as a primary outcome measure,<20%provided level 1 evidence through randomised controlled trials(RCTs).There was significant variation in the selection and reporting of PROMs,with no studies declaring patient involvement in PROM selection,and 88.2%of studies failing to document the management of missing data points,or non-returned surveys(33.3%).In the 6 PROM-validation studies identified,only 5 psychometric properties were evaluated,the findings of which were limited due to the small number of studies.This systematic review identifies a lack in consistency of study design and PRO reporting in clinical trials.Whilst an increasing number of studies are being performed to evaluate PROs,a lack of adherence to existing PRO administration and reporting guidelines is continuing to negatively affect study quality.We recommend that future clinical tr
