de Keizer N F, Talmon J, Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Rigby M, Nykanen P
Academic Medical Center, Department of Medical Informatics, J1b-115, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Methods Inf Med. 2012;51(2):104-11. doi: 10.3414/ME10-01-0072. Epub 2011 Mar 4.
We previously devised and published a guideline for reporting health informatics evaluation studies named STARE-HI, which is formally endorsed by IMIA and EFMI.
To develop a prioritization framework of ranked reporting items to assist authors when reporting health informatics evaluation studies in space restricted conference papers and to apply this prioritization framework to measure the quality of recent health informatics conference papers on evaluation studies.
We deconstructed the STARE-HI guideline to identify reporting items. We invited a total of 111 authors of health informatics evaluation studies, reviewers and editors of health Informatics conference proceedings to score those reporting items on a scale ranging from "0 - not necessary in a conference paper" through to "10 - essential in a conference paper" by a web-based survey. From the responses we derived a mean priority score. All evaluation papers published in proceedings of MIE2006, Medinfo2007, MIE2008 and AMIA2008 were rated on these items by two reviewers. From these ratings a priority adjusted completeness score was computed for each paper.
We identified 104 reporting items from the STARE-HI guideline. The response rate for the survey was 59% (66 out of 111). The most important reporting items (mean score ≥9) were "Interpret the data and give an answer to the study question - (in Discussion)", "Whether it is a laboratory, simulation or field study - (in Methods-study design)" and "Description of the outcome measure/evaluation criteria - (in Methods-study design)". Per reporting area the statistically more significant important reporting items were distinguished from less important ones. Four reporting items had a mean score ≤6. The mean priority adjusted completeness of evaluation papers of recent health informatics conferences was 48% (range 14-78%).
We produced a ranked list of reporting items from STARE-HI according to their prioritized relevance for inclusion in space-limited conference papers. The priority adjusted completeness scores demonstrated room for improvement for the analyzed conference papers. We believe that this prioritization framework is an aid to improving the quality and utility of conference papers on health informatics evaluation studies.
我们之前制定并发表了一项关于报告健康信息学评估研究的指南,名为STARE-HI,该指南得到了国际医学信息学会(IMIA)和欧洲医学信息学会(EFMI)的正式认可。
制定一个排序报告项目的优先级框架,以帮助作者在篇幅受限的会议论文中报告健康信息学评估研究,并应用此优先级框架来衡量近期关于评估研究的健康信息学会议论文的质量。
我们对STARE-HI指南进行解构以确定报告项目。我们共邀请了111位健康信息学评估研究的作者、健康信息学会议论文集的审稿人和编辑,通过基于网络的调查,让他们对这些报告项目按照从“0 - 在会议论文中不必要”到“10 - 在会议论文中必不可少”的范围进行评分。从回复中我们得出了平均优先级分数。由两位审稿人根据这些项目对发表在MIE2006、Medinfo2007、MIE2008和AMIA2008会议论文集中的所有评估论文进行评分。根据这些评分计算出每篇论文的优先级调整后的完整性分数。
我们从STARE-HI指南中确定了104个报告项目。调查的回复率为59%(111人中66人回复)。最重要的报告项目(平均分数≥9)是“解释数据并回答研究问题 - (在讨论部分)”、“它是实验室研究、模拟研究还是实地研究 - (在方法 - 研究设计部分)”以及“结果测量/评估标准的描述 - (在方法 - 研究设计部分)”。在每个报告领域,从统计学上区分出了更重要的报告项目和不太重要的报告项目。有四个报告项目的平均分数≤6。近期健康信息学会议评估论文的平均优先级调整后的完整性为48%(范围为14 - 78%)。
我们根据STARE-HI中各报告项目对于纳入篇幅受限的会议论文的优先级相关性,生成了一个排序列表。优先级调整后的完整性分数表明被分析的会议论文仍有改进空间。我们认为这个优先级框架有助于提高关于健康信息学评估研究的会议论文的质量和实用性。