Yang Angela Weihong, Li Chun Guang, Da Costa Cliff, Allan Garry, Reece John, Xue Charlie Changli
The RMIT Chinese Medicine Research Group, Division of Chinese Medicine, School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
J Altern Complement Med. 2009 May;15(5):513-22. doi: 10.1089/acm.2007.0806.
When higher level of evidence is absent, findings of case series studies can be used to generate hypotheses for further research. However, to date, there has been no established instrument for determining their quality. This study was to develop and validate an instrument to assess the quality of case series studies on herbal medicines.
A draft instrument was developed based on items generated by judges. Raters (including judges), consisting of herbal medicine researchers, herbal medicine practitioners, and other professionals, used the draft instrument to assess the quality of sample case series reports. The number of quality assessment items was then reduced as much as possible in the instrument while maintaining its reliability and validity. Content and construct validity, and inter-rater agreement of the instrument were used as the main outcome measures.
Seven (7) judges from different backgrounds independently generated 68 nonredundant items for inclusion in the initial draft instrument. The content validity of these items was assessed by all judges for consensus using a seven-point scale, and a 24-item second-draft instrument was derived. The wording and sequence of these items were further revised and then used by 20 raters (including seven judges) to assess the quality of 35 case series reports. A 13-item instrument was finally developed. All raters, including the judges, demonstrated a high level of consistency on quality of the reports by using this instrument, despite their different backgrounds.
High-level consistency can be achieved by using this instrument to assess the quality of case series studies. This instrument may facilitate the improvement of reporting quality of case series studies.
在缺乏更高级别证据时,病例系列研究的结果可用于生成进一步研究的假设。然而,迄今为止,尚无确定其质量的既定工具。本研究旨在开发并验证一种评估草药病例系列研究质量的工具。
基于评审员提出的条目制定了一份初步工具。由草药研究人员、草药从业者和其他专业人员组成的评分者(包括评审员)使用该初步工具评估样本病例系列报告的质量。然后在保持工具可靠性和有效性的同时,尽可能减少工具中质量评估条目的数量。以该工具的内容效度、结构效度和评分者间一致性作为主要结局指标。
7名来自不同背景的评审员独立提出了68个非冗余条目纳入初始初步工具。所有评审员使用七点量表对这些条目的内容效度进行评估以达成共识,由此得出一份包含24个条目的第二版工具。对这些条目的措辞和顺序进一步修订,然后由20名评分者(包括7名评审员)用于评估35份病例系列报告的质量。最终开发出一份包含13个条目的工具。尽管背景不同,但所有评分者(包括评审员)使用该工具对报告质量的评估都表现出高度一致性。
使用该工具评估病例系列研究的质量可实现高度一致性。该工具可能有助于提高病例系列研究的报告质量。