| 1. |
- Mullan, Rebecca J, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 62:2, s. 138-142
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Author contact can enhance the quality of systematic reviews. We conducted a systematic review of the practice of author contact in recently published systematic reviews to characterize its prevalence, quality, and results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible studies were systematic reviews of efficacy published in 2005-2006 in the 25 journals with the highest impact factor publishing systematic reviews in clinical medicine and the Cochrane Library, identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Two researchers determined whether and why reviewers contacted authors. To assess the accuracy of the abstracted data, we surveyed reviewers by e-mail. RESULTS: Forty-six (50%) of the 93 eligible systematic reviews published in top journals and 46 (85%) of the 54 eligible Cochrane reviews reported contacting authors of eligible studies. Requests were made most commonly for missing information: 40 (76%) clinical medicine reviews and 45 (98%) Cochrane reviews. One hundred and nine of 147 (74%) reviewers responded to the survey, and reported a higher rate of author contact than apparent from the published record. CONCLUSION: Although common, author contact is not a universal feature of systematic reviews published in top journals and the Cochrane Library. The conduct and reporting of author contact purpose, procedures, and results require improvement.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kidholm, Kristian, et al.
(författare)
-
Telemedicine and the assessment of clinician time. A scoping review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. - 0266-4623 .- 1471-6348. ; 40:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Telemedicine may improve healthcare access and efficiency if demanding less clinician time than usual care. We sought to describe the degree to which telemedicine trials assess the effect of telemedicine on clinicians' time and to discuss how including the Time Needed to Treat (TNT) in HTA of telemedicine could affect 33 the design of telemedicine services and studies. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching clinicaltrials.gov using the search term "telemedicine"and limiting results to randomized trials or observational studies with a comparison group registered between January 2012 and October 2023. We then reviewed trial registration data to determine if any of the outcomes assessed in the trials measured effect on clinicians' time. Results: We found 113 studies and of these 78 studies of telemedicine met the inclusion criteria and were included. Nine (12 percent) of the 78 studies had some measure of clinician time as a primary outcome, and 11 (14 percent) as secondary outcome. Four studies compared direct measures of TNT with telemedicine vs. usual care, but no statistically significant difference was found. Of the sixteen studies including indirect measures of clinician time, thirteen found no significant effects, two found a statistically significant reduction and one found a statistically significant increase. Discussion: This scoping review found that clinician time is not commonly measured in studies of telemedicine interventions. Attention to telemedicine's TNT in clinical studies and HTAs of telemedicine in practice may bring 48 attention to the organization of workflows and increase the value of telemedicine.
|
|
