Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 259
Filtrar
1.
medRxiv ; 2024 Mar 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38585914

RESUMO

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. Methods: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Results: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. Conclusions: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.

4.
Med J Aust ; 220(4): 169, 2024 03 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38431826

Assuntos
Atenção , Humanos
6.
Med J Aust ; 220(2): 59, 2024 02 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38310444
7.
Med J Aust ; 220(3): 111, 2024 02 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38368554
8.
Med J Aust ; 220(1): 3, 2024 01 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38219234
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...