7 results on '"Patricia Alcalde-Mellado"'
Search Results
2. Relationships between abstract features and methodological quality explained variations of social media activity derived from systematic reviews about psoriasis interventions
- Author
-
Macarena Aguilar-Luque, Francisco Gómez-García, J.L. Hernández-Romero, Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas, Juan Ruano, Jesús Gay-Mimbrera, Beatriz Isla-Tejera, Patricia Alcalde-Mellado, Pedro J. Carmona-Fernandez, Marcelino González-Padilla, A.J. Vélez García-Nieto, and Beatriz Maestre-López
- Subjects
Quality Control ,Research Report ,Epidemiology ,Abstracting and Indexing ,Writing ,Applied psychology ,Psychological intervention ,Readability ,030207 dermatology & venereal diseases ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Systematic review ,Bibliometrics ,Humans ,Psoriasis ,Social media ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Altmetrics ,Psychology ,Methodological quality ,Social Media ,Algorithms ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study was to describe the relationship among abstract structure, readability, and completeness, and how these features may influence social media activity and bibliometric results, considering systematic reviews (SRs) about interventions in psoriasis classified by methodological quality. Study Design and Setting Systematic literature searches about psoriasis interventions were undertaken on relevant databases. For each review, methodological quality was evaluated using the assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews tool. Abstract extension, structure, readability, and quality and completeness of reporting were analyzed. Social media activity, which consider Twitter and Facebook mention counts, as well as Mendeley readers and Google scholar citations were obtained for each article. Analyses were conducted to describe any potential influence of abstract characteristics on review's social media diffusion. Results We classified 139 intervention SRs as displaying high/moderate/low methodological quality. We observed that abstract readability of SRs has been maintained high for last 20 years, although there are some differences based on their methodological quality. Free format abstracts were most sensitive to the increase of text readability as compared with more structured abstracts (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion or eight headings), yielding opposite effects on their quality and completeness depending on the methodological quality: a worsening in low quality reviews and an improvement in those of high quality. Both readability indices and preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for Abstract total scores showed an inverse relationship with social media activity and bibliometric results in high methodological quality reviews but not in those of lower quality. Conclusion Our results suggest that increasing abstract readability must be specially considered when writing free format summaries of high-quality reviews because this fact correlates with an improvement of their completeness and quality, and this may help to achieve broader social media visibility and article usage.
- Published
- 2018
3. Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol
- Author
-
Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas, Jesus Fernandez-Chaichio, Pedro J. Carmona-Fernandez, Marcelino González-Padilla, Francisco Gómez-García, Antonio Vélez García-Nieto, José Luis Hernández Romero, Jose Luis Fernández-Rueda, Beatriz Isla-Tejera, Francisco Franco-García, Jesús Gay-Mimbrera, Patricia Alcalde-Mellado, Macarena Aguilar-Luque, Isabel Viguera-Guerra, Juan Ruano, and Manuel Cárdenas-Aranzana
- Subjects
MEDLINE ,lcsh:Medicine ,Medicine (miscellaneous) ,computer.software_genre ,Predictive models ,030207 dermatology & venereal diseases ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Meta-Analysis as Topic ,Protocol ,Humans ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Systematic review protocols ,Publishing ,Meta-epidemiology ,Information retrieval ,business.industry ,lcsh:R ,Deep learning ,Metadata ,Epidemiologic Studies ,Workflow ,Systematic review ,Reporting bias ,Data extraction ,Scripting language ,PROSPERO ,Periodicals as Topic ,business ,Web scraping ,computer ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Background Epidemiology and the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are well known. However, no study has analyzed the influence of protocol features on the probability that a study’s results will be finally reported, thereby indirectly assessing the reporting bias of International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration records. Objective The objective of this study is to explore which factors are associated with a higher probability that results derived from a non-Cochrane PROSPERO registration record for a systematic review will be finally reported as an original article in a scientific journal. Methods/design The PROSPERO repository will be web scraped to automatically and iteratively obtain all completed non-Cochrane registration records stored from February 2011 to December 2017. Downloaded records will be screened, and those with less than 90% fulfilled or are duplicated (i.e., those sharing titles and reviewers) will be excluded. Manual and human-supervised automatic methods will be used for data extraction, depending on the data source (fields of PROSPERO registration records, bibliometric databases, etc.). Records will be classified into published, discontinued, and abandoned review subgroups. All articles derived from published reviews will be obtained through multiple parallel searches using the full protocol “title” and/or “list reviewers” in MEDLINE/PubMed databases and Google Scholar. Reviewer, author, article, and journal metadata will be obtained using different sources. R and Python programming and analysis languages will be used to describe the datasets; perform text mining, machine learning, and deep learning analyses; and visualize the data. We will report the study according to the recommendations for meta-epidemiological studies adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for SRs and MAs. Discussion This meta-epidemiological study will explore, for the first time, characteristics of PROSPERO records that may be associated with the publication of a completed systematic review. The evidence may help to improve review workflow performance in terms of research topic selection, decision-making regarding team selection, planning relationships with funding sources, implementing literature search strategies, and efficient data extraction and analysis. We expect to make our results, datasets, and R and Python code scripts publicly available during the third quarter of 2018.
- Published
- 2018
4. The differential impact of scientific quality, bibliometric factors, and social media activity on the influence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis
- Author
-
Antonio Vélez García-Nieto, Jesús Gay-Mimbrera, Francisco Gómez-García, Marcelino González-Padilla, Patricia Alcalde Mellado, Beatriz Isla-Tejera, José Luis Hernández Romero, Macarena Aguilar-Luque, Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas, Beatriz Maestre-López, Juan Ruano, and Pedro J. Carmona-Fernandez
- Subjects
Computer and Information Sciences ,Systematic Reviews ,Twitter ,Immunology ,Applied psychology ,Scopus ,Social Sciences ,lcsh:Medicine ,Bibliometrics ,Research and Analysis Methods ,Autoimmune Diseases ,030207 dermatology & venereal diseases ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Sociology ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,Humans ,Psoriasis ,Social media ,lcsh:Science ,Scientific Publishing ,Altmetrics ,Multidisciplinary ,Impact factor ,05 social sciences ,lcsh:R ,Social Communication ,Biology and Life Sciences ,Research Assessment ,Communications ,Systematic review ,Social Networks ,Meta-analysis ,Citation Analysis ,Clinical Immunology ,lcsh:Q ,Clinical Medicine ,0509 other social sciences ,050904 information & library sciences ,Citation ,Psychology ,Social Media ,Network Analysis ,Research Article - Abstract
Researchers are increasingly using on line social networks to promote their work. Some authors have suggested that measuring social media activity can predict the impact of a primary study (i.e., whether or not an article will be highly cited). However, the influence of variables such as scientific quality, research disclosures, and journal characteristics on systematic reviews and meta-analyses has not yet been assessed. The present study aims to describe the effect of complex interactions between bibliometric factors and social media activity on the impact of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016053181). Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Altmetrics, which consider Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ mention counts as well as Mendeley and SCOPUS readers, and corresponding article citation counts from Google Scholar were obtained for each article. Metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. One-hundred and sixty-four reviews with available altmetrics information were included in the final multifactorial analysis, which showed that social media and impact factor have less effect than Mendeley and SCOPUS readers on the number of cites that appear in Google Scholar. Although a journal's impact factor predicted the number of tweets (OR, 1.202; 95% CI, 1.087-1.049), the years of publication and the number of Mendeley readers predicted the number of citations in Google Scholar (OR, 1.033; 95% CI, 1.018-1.329). Finally, methodological quality was related neither with bibliometric influence nor social media activity for systematic reviews. In conclusion, there seems to be a lack of connectivity between scientific quality, social media activity, and article usage, thus predicting scientific success based on these variables may be inappropriate in the particular case of systematic reviews.
- Published
- 2018
5. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions
- Author
-
Patricia Alcalde-Mellado, Beatriz Isla-Tejera, Beatriz Maestre-López, Macarena Aguilar-Luque, Francisco Gómez-García, Jesús Gay-Mimbrera, José Luis Hernández-Romero, Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas, Juan Ruano, Antonio Vélez García-Nieto, Marcelino González-Padilla, and Pedro J. Carmona-Fernandez
- Subjects
Quality Control ,Research Report ,Research design ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Abstracting and Indexing ,Epidemiology ,Decision trees ,MEDLINE ,Decision tree ,Psychological intervention ,Health Informatics ,PRISMA for abstracts ,030207 dermatology & venereal diseases ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Bias ,Meta-Analysis as Topic ,Risk Factors ,Quality of reporting ,medicine ,Psoriasis ,Humans ,Medical physics ,Methodological quality ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Publishing ,lcsh:R5-920 ,AMSTAR ,Univariate ,Review Literature as Topic ,Systematic review ,Research Design ,Abstract readability ,Periodicals as Topic ,lcsh:Medicine (General) ,Psychology ,Risk assessment ,Research Article - Abstract
Background Article summaries’ information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians’ decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone. Methods Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs’ methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company. Results This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only ’authors per review > 6’ (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), ’academic source of funding’ (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and ’PRISMA-endorsed journal’ (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score
- Published
- 2017
6. Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool
- Author
-
Jesús Gay-Mimbrera, Patricia Alcalde-Mellado, Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas, Marcelino González-Padilla, Pedro J. Carmona-Fernandez, Macarena Aguilar-Luque, Antonio Vélez García-Nieto, Juan Ruano, Francisco Gómez-García, Beatriz Maestre-López, and Beatriz Isla-Tejera
- Subjects
Male ,Quality Control ,Epidemiology ,media_common.quotation_subject ,Psychological intervention ,Review Literature as Topic ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,parasitic diseases ,Medicine ,Humans ,Psoriasis ,Quality (business) ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Methodological quality ,Selection Bias ,media_common ,Selection bias ,Quality assessment ,business.industry ,Management science ,Epidemiologic Studies ,Systematic review ,Spain ,Female ,business ,Risk assessment ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,Clinical psychology - Abstract
Objectives No gold standard exists to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs). Although Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is widely accepted for analyzing quality, the ROBIS instrument has recently been developed. This study aimed to compare the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs concerning psoriasis interventions. Study Design and Setting Systematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases. For each review, methodological quality and bias risk were evaluated using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. Descriptive and principal component analyses were conducted to describe similarities and discrepancies between both assessment tools. Results We classified 139 intervention SRs as displaying high/moderate/low methodological quality and as high/low risk of bias. A high risk of bias was detected for most SRs classified as displaying high or moderate methodological quality by AMSTAR. When comparing ROBIS result profiles, responses to domain 4 signaling questions showed the greatest differences between bias risk assessments, whereas domain 2 items showed the least. Conclusion When considering SRs published about psoriasis, methodological quality remains suboptimal, and the risk of bias is elevated, even for SRs exhibiting high methodological quality. Furthermore, the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools may be considered as complementary when conducting quality assessment of SRs.
- Published
- 2017
7. Author-paper affiliation network architecture influences the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of psoriasis
- Author
-
Francisco Gómez-García, Beatriz Maestre-López, Marcelino González-Padilla, Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas, Pedro J. Carmona-Fernandez, Macarena Aguilar-Luque, Juan Ruano, Beatriz Isla-Tejera, Antonio Vélez García-Nieto, Patricia Alcalde-Mellado, and Jesús Gay-Mimbrera
- Subjects
0301 basic medicine ,Applied psychology ,lcsh:Medicine ,law.invention ,Database and Informatics Methods ,Mathematical and Statistical Techniques ,0302 clinical medicine ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,Centrality ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Database Searching ,lcsh:Science ,Meta-Analysis as Topic ,media_common ,Multidisciplinary ,Research Assessment ,Data Accuracy ,Professions ,Systematic review ,Meta-analysis ,Physical Sciences ,Psychology ,Network Analysis ,Statistics (Mathematics) ,Research Article ,Computer and Information Sciences ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Systematic Reviews ,media_common.quotation_subject ,Immunology ,MEDLINE ,Bibliometrics ,Research and Analysis Methods ,Autoimmune Diseases ,03 medical and health sciences ,Quality of life (healthcare) ,Bias ,medicine ,Humans ,Psoriasis ,Quality (business) ,Statistical Methods ,lcsh:R ,Biology and Life Sciences ,Dermatology ,Authorship ,Review Literature as Topic ,030104 developmental biology ,People and Places ,Scientists ,Clinical Immunology ,Population Groupings ,lcsh:Q ,Clinical Medicine ,Mathematics ,Meta-Analysis - Abstract
Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors' collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews.
- Published
- 2017
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.