Mostra el registre d'ítem simple
Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review
dc.contributor.author | Superchi, Cecilia |
dc.contributor.author | González Alastrué, José Antonio |
dc.contributor.author | Solà, Ivan |
dc.contributor.author | Cobo Valeri, Erik |
dc.contributor.author | Hren, Darko |
dc.contributor.author | Boutron, Isabelle |
dc.contributor.other | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Departament d'Estadística i Investigació Operativa |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-03-13T06:51:18Z |
dc.date.available | 2019-03-13T06:51:18Z |
dc.date.issued | 2019-03-06 |
dc.identifier.citation | Superchi, C. [et al.]. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. "BMC medical research methodology", 6 Març 2019, vol. 19, núm. 48, p. 1-14. |
dc.identifier.issn | 1471-2288 |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2117/130297 |
dc.description.abstract | Background A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. Methods We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis. Results We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of ‘quality’. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer’s comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18). Conclusion Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. |
dc.format.extent | 14 p. |
dc.language.iso | eng |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Spain |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/ |
dc.subject | Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Economia i organització d'empreses |
dc.subject.lcsh | Research--Evaluation |
dc.subject.lcsh | Biomedical engineering--Research--Evaluation |
dc.subject.other | Quality control |
dc.subject.other | methods |
dc.subject.other | report |
dc.subject.other | systematic review |
dc.title | Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review |
dc.type | Article |
dc.subject.lemac | Investigació -- Avaluació |
dc.subject.lemac | Enginyeria biomèdica -- Investigació -- Avaluació |
dc.contributor.group | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. GNOM - Grup d'Optimització Numèrica i Modelització |
dc.contributor.group | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. GRBIO - Grup de Recerca en Bioestadística i Bioinformàtica |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed |
dc.relation.publisherversion | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x |
dc.rights.access | Open Access |
local.identifier.drac | 23968717 |
dc.description.version | Postprint (author's final draft) |
dc.relation.projectid | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/676207/EU/Methods in Research on Research/MIROR |
local.citation.author | Superchi, C.; Gonzalez, J.; Solà, I.; Cobo, E.; Hren, D.; Boutron, I. |
local.citation.publicationName | BMC medical research methodology |
local.citation.volume | 19 |
local.citation.number | 48 |
local.citation.startingPage | 1 |
local.citation.endingPage | 14 |
Fitxers d'aquest items
Aquest ítem apareix a les col·leccions següents
-
Articles de revista [104]
-
Articles de revista [214]
-
Articles de revista [719]