Search

Copyright of TECHNO Review is the property of Eurasia Academic Publishing Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Epistemonikos.org is a database of resources that provides evidence-based health care information in a central depository to assist people in making decisions for clinical or health policy questions. This database is provided free of charge and is put together by a nonprofit organization based out of Santiago, Chile, formed by individuals associated with different institutions. The database is updated continuously, by systematically searching different databases and by utilizing web technologies to store the information. The purpose and goal of this resource is to provide quick access to systematic reviews and broad combinations of reviews and primary studies in health care. Additionally, it is a multilingual database available in nine different languages, and titles and abstracts are translated and can easily be searched by providers whose primary language may not be English.

The methodological quality of primary studies is an important issue when performing meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Nevertheless, there are no clear criteria for how methodological quality should be analyzed. Controversies emerge when considering the various theoretical and empirical definitions, especially in relation to three interrelated problems: the lack of representativeness, utility, and feasibility. In this article, we (a) systematize and summarize the available literature about methodological quality in primary studies; (b) propose a specific, parsimonious, 12-item checklist to empirically define the methodological quality of primary studies based on a content validity study; and (c) present an inter-coder reliability study for the resulting 12 items. This paper provides a precise and rigorous description of the development of this checklist, highlighting the clearly specified criteria for the inclusion of items and a substantial inter-coder agreement in the different items. Rather than simply proposing another checklist, however, it then argues that the list constitutes an assessment tool with respect to the representativeness, utility, and feasibility of the most frequent methodological quality items in the literature, one that provides practitioners and researchers with clear criteria for choosing items that may be adequate to their needs. We propose individual methodological features as indicators of quality, arguing that these need to be taken into account when designing, implementing, or evaluating an intervention program. This enhances methodological quality of intervention programs and fosters the cumulative knowledge based on meta-analyses of these interventions. Future development of the checklist is discussed.

The methodological quality of primary studies is an important issue when performing meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Nevertheless, there are no clear criteria for how methodological quality should be analyzed. Controversies emerge when considering the various theoretical and empirical definitions, especially in relation to three interrelated problems: the lack of representativeness, utility, and feasibility. In this article, we (a) systematize and summarize the available literature about methodological quality in primary studies; (b) propose a specific, parsimonious, 12-items checklist to empirically define the methodological quality of primary studies based on a content validity study; and (c) present an inter-coder reliability study for the resulting 12-items. This paper provides a precise and rigorous description of the development of this checklist, highlighting the clearly specified criteria for the inclusion of items and a substantial intercoder agreement in the different items. Rather than simply proposing another checklist, however, it then argues that the list constitutes an assessment tool with respect to the representativeness, utility, and feasibility of the most frequent methodological quality items in the literature, one that provides practitioners and researchers with clear criteria for choosing items that may be adequate to their needs. We propose individual methodological features as indicators of quality, arguing that these need to be taken into account when designing, implementing, or evaluating an intervention program. This enhances methodological quality of intervention programs and fosters the cumulative knowledge based on meta-analyses of these interventions. Future development of the checklist is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In oncology, prognostic markers are clinical measures used to help elicit an individual patient's risk of a future outcome, such as recurrence of disease after primary treatment. They thus facilitate individual treatment choice and aid in patient counselling. Evidence-based results regarding prognostic markers are therefore very important to both clinicians and their patients. However, there is increasing awareness that prognostic marker studies have been neglected in the drive to improve medical research. Large protocol-driven, prospective studies are the ideal, with appropriate statistical analysis and clear, unbiased reporting of the methods used and the results obtained. Unfortunately, published prognostic studies rarely meet such standards, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often only able to draw attention to the paucity of good-quality evidence. We discuss how better-quality prognostic marker evidence can evolve over time from initial exploratory studies, to large protocol-driven primary studies, and then to meta-analysis or even beyond, to large prospectively planned pooled analyses and to the initiation of tumour banks. We highlight articles that facilitate each stage of this process, and that promote current guidelines aimed at improving the design, analysis, and reporting of prognostic marker research. We also outline why collaborative, multi-centre, and multi-disciplinary teams should be an essential part of future studies.British Journal of Cancer (2009) 100, 1219–1229. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604999 www.bjcancer.com [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reality demands that schoolchildren learn how to "look at" the messages they are daily bombarded with from within the scope of a well-formed criterion. Furthermore, it is the children themselves that claim for the need of such learning at school, since they do not deem by their parents as appropriately qualified to tackle certain issues concerning the interpretation of TV contents. The article offers an analysis about Education how the new Spanish legislation for Primary School deals with media education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Predatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence-systematic reviews-through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making., Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs)., Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall's List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review's inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics., Results: Our randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics., Conclusions: Studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research., (©Ryan Ottwell, Brooke Hightower, Olivia Failla, Kelsey Snider, Adam Corcoran, Micah Hartwell, Matt Vassar. Originally published in JMIR Dermatology (http://derma.jmir.org), 14.09.2022.)