Did we describe what you meant? Findings and methodological discussion of an empirical validation study for a systematic review of reasons
نویسندگان
چکیده
BACKGROUND The systematic review of reasons is a new way to obtain comprehensive information about specific ethical topics. One such review was carried out for the question of why post-trial access to trial drugs should or need not be provided. The objective of this study was to empirically validate this review using an author check method. The article also reports on methodological challenges faced by our study. METHODS We emailed a questionnaire to the 64 corresponding authors of those papers that were assessed in the review of reasons on post-trial access. The questionnaire consisted of all quotations ("reason mentions") that were identified by the review to represent a reason in a given author's publication, together with a set of codings for the quotations. The authors were asked to rate the correctness of the codings. RESULTS We received 19 responses, from which only 13 were completed questionnaires. In total, 98 quotations and their related codes in the 13 questionnaires were checked by the addressees. For 77 quotations (79%), all codings were deemed correct, for 21 quotations (21%), some codings were deemed to need correction. Most corrections were minor and did not imply a complete misunderstanding of the citation. CONCLUSIONS This first attempt to validate a review of reasons leads to four crucial methodological questions relevant to the future conduct of such validation studies: 1) How can a description of a reason be deemed incorrect? 2) Do the limited findings of this author check study enable us to determine whether the core results of the analysed SRR are valid? 3) Why did the majority of surveyed authors refrain from commenting on our understanding of their reasoning? 4) How can the method for validating reviews of reasons be improved?
منابع مشابه
Author's response to reviews Title:Did we describe what you meant? Findings and methodological discussion of an empirical validation study for a systematic review of reasons Authors:
متن کامل
What Is Resilience and How Can It Be Nurtured? A Systematic Review of Empirical Literature on Organizational Resilience
Background Recent health system shocks such as the Ebola outbreak of 2014–2016 and the global financial crisis of 2008 have generated global health interest in the concept of resilience. The concept is however not new, and has been applied to other sectors for a longer period of time. We conducted a review of empirical literature from both the health and other sectors to synthesize evidence on ...
متن کاملEvaluation of an evaluation
Introduction. Evaluation is a systematic way to improve and make more effective actions that involves procedures which are useful, feasible, ethical, and accurate. Common questions in all evaluations are: do all part of program do well and effective? What is the good functioning? Why the program or its parts do not work well? What are the effects and consequences of the program? Is this progra...
متن کاملLess is More: Writing the Abstract
for Empirical Study • One sentence that presents the problem under investigation Abstract for Empirical Study • The participants: age, sex, and ethnic/racial group. • In animal research, make sure you specify genus and species.for Empirical Study • The participants: age, sex, and ethnic/racial group. • In animal research, make sure you specify genus and species. Abstract for Empirical Study • E...
متن کاملP-138: What Should We Know about Ethical Problem in ART? A Study of Systematic Review
Background: Advances in medical technology have had major impacts on human reproduction. The development of effective contraceptive methods has reduced unwanted fertility, and the development of a variety of drugs and procedures has, for the first time, permitted women with fertility problems to reasonably expect that they can fulfill their desires to have children. So, The aim of this review a...
متن کامل