• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review
【24h】

Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

机译：图书馆和情报学LIS系统评价的质量评估方法：方法论综述

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective – Systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the Library and Information Science (LIS) domain. This paper has three aims: to review approaches to quality assessment in published LIS systematic reviews in order to assess whether and how LIS reviewers report on quality assessment a priori in systematic reviews, to model the different quality assessment aids used by LIS reviewers, and to explore if and how LIS reviewers report on and incorporate the quality of included studies into the systematic review analysis and conclusions. Methods – The authors undertook a methodological study of published LIS systematic reviews using a known cohort of published systematic reviews of LIS-related research. Studies were included if they were reported as a “systematic review” in the title, abstract, or methods section. Meta-analyses that did not incorporate a systematic review and studies in which the systematic review was not a main objective were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies. Data were extracted on the type of synthesis, whether quality assessment was planned and undertaken, the number of reviewers involved in assessing quality, the types of tools or criteria used to assess the quality of the included studies, how quality assessment was assessed and reported in the systematic review, and whether the quality of the included studies was considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review. In order to determine the quality of the reporting and incorporation of quality assessment in LIS systematic reviews, each study was assessed against criteria relating to quality assessment in the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009) and the AMSTAR tool (Shea et al., 2007). Results – Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. The results demonstrate great variation on the breadth, depth, and transparency of the quality assessment process in LIS systematic reviews. Nearly one third of the LIS systematic reviews included in this study did not report on quality assessment in the methods, and less than one quarter adequately incorporated quality assessment in the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Only nine of the 26 systematic reviews that undertook some form of quality assessment incorporated considerations of how the quality of the included studies impacted on the validity of the review findings in the analysis, conclusion, and recommendations. The large number of different quality assessment tools identified reflects not only the disparate nature of the LIS evidence base (Brettle, 2009) but also a lack of consensus around criteria on which to assess the quality of LIS research. Conclusion – Greater clarity, definition, and understanding of the methodology and concept of “quality” in the systematic review process are required not only by LIS reviewers but also by editors of journals in accepting such studies for publication. Further research and guidance is needed on identifying the best tools and approaches to incorporate considerations of quality in LIS systematic reviews. LIS reviewers need to improve the robustness and transparency with which quality assessment is undertaken and reported in systematic reviews. Above all, LIS reviewers need to be explicit in coming to a conclusion on how the quality of the included studies may impact on their review findings.
机译：目标–系统评价在图书馆和信息科学（LIS）领域越来越受欢迎。本文的三个目标是：审查已发布的LIS系统评价中的质量评估方法，以评估LIS评价者是否以及如何以先验的方式报告系统评价中的质量评价;为LIS评价者使用的不同质量评估工具建模;以及探索LIS审稿人是否以及如何报告纳入的研究质量，并将其纳入系统的审评分析和结论。方法–作者使用已知的LIS相关研究的已发表系统评价的队列对已发表的LIS系统评价进行了方法学研究。如果在标题，摘要或方法部分中将研究报告为“系统评价”，则将其包括在内。排除未纳入系统评价的荟萃分析和以系统评价不是主要目标的研究。两名评论者独立评估了研究。提取以下数据：综合类型，是否计划和进行质量评估，参与质量评估的审查员数量，用于评估纳入研究质量的工具或标准类型，如何评估和报告质量评估。系统评价，以及在评价的分析和结论中是否考虑了纳入研究的质量。为了确定报告的质量并将质量评估纳入LIS系统评价中，我们根据PRISMA系统评价和荟萃分析报告指南中与质量评价相关的标准对每个研究进行了评估（Moher，Liberati，Tetzlaff，Altman， ＆PRISMA Group，2009年）和AMSTAR工具（Shea等人，2007年）。结果– 40项研究符合纳入标准。结果表明，LIS系统评价中质量评估过程的广度，深度和透明度存在很大差异。这项研究中包括的LIS系统评价中，近三分之一没有报告方法中的质量评估，只有不到四分之一的质量评估充分纳入了分析，结论和建议中。在进行某种形式的质量评估的26条系统评价中，只有9条纳入了对纳入研究质量如何影响分析，结论和建议中评价结果有效性的考虑。所识别的大量不同质量评估工具不仅反映了LIS证据基础的不同性质（Brettle，2009年），而且还缺乏关于评估LIS研究质量的标准的共识。结论– LIS审稿人和接受这些研究发表的期刊编辑不仅需要对系统审稿过程中的“质量”的方法和概念进行更清晰，更清晰的理解，而且还需要期刊的编辑。在确定最佳工具和方法以将质量考虑因素纳入LIS系统评价中时，需要进一步的研究和指导。 LIS审稿人需要提高进行质量评估并在系统评价中进行报告的鲁棒性和透明度。最重要的是，LIS审稿人必须明确指出纳入研究的质量如何影响其审阅结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号