41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Should we exclude inadequately reported studies from qualitative systematic reviews? An evaluation of sensitivity analyses in two case study reviews.

          The role of critical appraisal of qualitative studies in systematic reviews remains an ongoing cause for debate. Key to such a debate is whether quality assessment can or should be used to exclude studies. In our study, we extended the use of existing criteria to assess the quality of reporting of studies included in two qualitative systematic reviews. We then excluded studies deemed to be inadequately reported from the subsequent analysis. We tested the impact of these exclusions on the overall findings of the synthesis and its depth or thickness. Exclusion of so-called inadequately reported studies had no meaningful effect on the synthesis. There was a correlation between quality of reporting of a study and its values as a source for the final synthesis. We propose that there is a possible case for excluding inadequately reported studies from qualitative evidence synthesis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed.

            To evaluate critical appraisal tools (CATs) that have been through a peer-reviewed development process with the aim of analyzing well-designed, documented, and researched CATs that could be used to develop a comprehensive CAT. A critical review of the development of CATs was undertaken. Of the 44 CATs reviewed, 25 (57%) were applicable to more than one research design, 11 (25%) to true experimental studies, and the remaining 8 (18%) to individual research designs. Comprehensive explanation of how a CAT was developed and guidelines to use the CAT were available in five (11%) instances. There was no validation process reported in 11 CATs (25%) and 33 CATs (77%) had not been reliability tested. The questions and statements that made up each CAT were coded into 8 categories and 22 items such that each item was distinct from every other. CATs are being developed while ignoring basic research techniques, the evidence available for design, and comprehensive validation and reliability testing. The basic structure for a comprehensive CAT is suggested that requires further study to verify its overall usefulness. Meanwhile, users of CATs should be careful about which CAT they use and how they use it. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the guide to community preventive services11The names and affiliations of the Task Force members are listed on page v of this supplement and at http://www.thecommunityguide.org

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Education for Information
                EFI
                IOS Press
                01678329
                18758649
                November 12 2018
                November 12 2018
                : 1-7
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
                [2 ]Method Development Platform, Quebec SPOR SUPPORT Unit, Montréal, QC, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Psychology and Education, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ]Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
                [5 ]Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia
                [6 ]Faculté De Médecine Et Des Sciences De La Santé, Université De Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
                [7 ]Faculté des Sciences Infirmières, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
                [8 ]Faculty of Dentistry, Division of Oral Health and Society Research, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
                [9 ]Medical Care Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
                [10 ]INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier Research Centre, Laval, QC, Canada
                Article
                10.3233/EFI-180221
                29132909
                711c4de2-521d-4cbf-9823-78b8c5babdb3
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article