4.2 Review

A methodological review of the quality of reporting of surveys in transfusion medicine

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 58, 期 11, 页码 2720-2727

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.14937

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS 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). 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 CONCLUSION 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. 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据