Heterogeneity of systematic reviews in oncology.

Systematic reviews synthesize data across multiple studies to answer a research question, and an important component of the review process is to evaluate the heterogeneity of primary studies considered for inclusion. Little is known, however, about the ways that systematic reviewers evaluate heterogeneity, especially in clinical specialties like oncology. We examined a sample of systematic reviews from this body of literature to determine how meta-analysts assessed and reported heterogeneity. A PubMed search of 6 oncology journals was conducted to locate systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Two coders then independently evaluated the manuscripts for 10 different elements based on an abstraction manual. The initial PubMed search yielded 337 systematic reviews from 6 journals. Screening for exclusion criteria (nonsystematic reviews, genetic studies, individual patient data, etc.) found 155 articles that did not meet the definition of a systematic review. This left a final sample of 182 systematic reviews across 4 journals. Of these reviews, 50% (91/182) used varying combinations of heterogeneity tests, and of those, 16% (15/91) of review authors noted excessive heterogeneity and opted to not perform a meta-analysis. Of the studies that measured heterogeneity, 51% (46/91) used a random-effects model, 7% (8/91) used a fixed-effects model, and 43% (39/91) used both. We conclude that use of quantitative and qualitative heterogeneity measurement tools are underused in the 4 oncology journals evaluated. Such assessments should be routinely applied in meta-analyses.

Psychometric Properties of the Serbian Version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey: A Validation Study among Anesthesiologists from Belgrade Teaching Hospitals.

We report findings from a validation study of the translated and culturally adapted Serbian version of Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS), for a sample of anesthesiologists working in the tertiary healthcare. The results showed the sufficient overall reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.72) of the scores (items 1-22). The results of Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ(2) = 1983.75, df = 231, p < 0.001) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.866) provided solid justification for factor analysis. In order to increase sensitivity of this questionnaire, we performed unfitted factor analysis model (eigenvalue greater than 1) which enabled us to extract the most suitable factor structure for our study instrument. The exploratory factor analysis model revealed five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining 62.0% of cumulative variance. Velicer's MAP test has supported five-factor model with the smallest average squared correlation of 0,184. This study indicated that Serbian version of the MBI-HSS is a reliable and valid instrument to measure burnout among a population of anesthesiologists. Results confirmed strong psychometric characteristics of the study instrument, with recommendations for interpretation of two new factors that may be unique to the Serbian version of the MBI-HSS.

Urban Indian voices: a community-based participatory research health and needs assessment.

This community-based participatory research (CBPR) project utilized a mixed-methods survey design to identify urban (Tulsa, OK) American Indian (AI) strengths and needs. Six hundred fifty AIs (550 adults and 100 youth) were surveyed regarding their attitudes and beliefs about their community. These results were used in conjunction with other community research efforts to inform program development, support proposals for external funding, and develop a comprehensive service system model to be implemented in the community.

The belief in a just world: an examination of reliability estimates across three measures.

In this study, we utilized reliability generalization procedures to examine internal consistency estimates across 3 scales measuring the belief in a just world. The distribution of reliability estimates for the measures suggest low to moderate ranges of internal consistency reliability coefficients. The Global Belief in a Just World Scale (Lipkus, 1991) produced the highest average reliability score (alpha = .81) compared to the Just World Scale (Rubin & Peplau, 1973; alpha = .64) and the Just World Scale Revised (Rubin & Peplau, 1975; alpha = .68).