| 1. |
- Errichetti, E., et al.
(författare)
-
Standardization of dermoscopic terminology and basic dermoscopic parameters to evaluate in general dermatology (non-neoplastic dermatoses): an expert consensus on behalf of the International Dermoscopy Society
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Dermatology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0007-0963 .- 1365-2133. ; 182:2, s. 454-467
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Over the last few years, several articles on dermoscopy of non-neoplastic dermatoses have been published, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among different studies. Objectives We aimed to standardize the dermoscopic terminology and identify basic parameters to evaluate in non-neoplastic dermatoses through an expert consensus. Methods The modified Delphi method was followed, with two phases: (i) identification of a list of possible items based on a systematic literature review and (ii) selection of parameters by a panel of experts through a three-step iterative procedure (blinded e-mail interaction in rounds 1 and 3 and a face-to-face meeting in round 2). Initial panellists were recruited via e-mail from all over the world based on their expertise on dermoscopy of non-neoplastic dermatoses. Results Twenty-four international experts took part in all rounds of the consensus and 13 further international participants were also involved in round 2. Five standardized basic parameters were identified: (i) vessels (including morphology and distribution); (ii) scales (including colour and distribution); (iii) follicular findings; (iv) 'other structures' (including colour and morphology); and (v) 'specific clues'. For each of them, possible variables were selected, with a total of 31 different subitems reaching agreement at the end of the consensus (all of the 29 proposed initially plus two more added in the course of the consensus procedure). Conclusions This expert consensus provides a set of standardized basic dermoscopic parameters to follow when evaluating inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious dermatoses. This tool, if adopted by clinicians and researchers in this field, is likely to enhance the reproducibility and comparability of existing and future research findings and uniformly expand the universal knowledge on dermoscopy in general dermatology.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ebersole, Charles R., et al.
(författare)
-
Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : Sage. - 2515-2467 .- 2515-2459. ; 3:3, s. 309-331
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3-9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276-3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Delta r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00-.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19-.50).
|
|
