Notions of quality and standards for qualitative research reporting

Impact of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis on periodontal disease: A review

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies support a bidirectional association between rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic autoimmune degenerative inflammatory joint disease, and periodontitis, a chronic inflammatory disease caused by the immune reaction to bacteria organized in biofilms. RA and periodontitis are both multifactorial chronic inflammatory diseases that share common modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. There is no cure for RA; treatment is based on lifestyle modifications and a variety of medications: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), glucocorticoids, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs, e.g., conventional synthetic DMARDs [csDMARDs]; biological DMARDs [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARDs). There are molecular pathways of inflammation that are common to both RA and periodontitis. Thus, there is a potential effect of RA treatments on periodontitis. This systematic review aims to assess the impact of antirheumatic agents on periodontal conditions of patients suffering from both RA and periodontitis.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase online databases were systematically explored, and a manual search was performed to identify relevant studies published until January 2023. This review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023409006).

RESULTS

A total of 2827 articles were identified, and 35 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The included studies generally show a consensus that, at normal dosage, NSAID and corticosteroids have negligible impact on periodontium. Similarly, csDMARD alone or in combination with other csDMARD demonstrated no adverse effect on periodontium. Monotherapy with bDMARD had a positive effect on periodontal pocket depths and gingival inflammation in the longitudinal studies up to 6 months but showed negligible effect on the periodontium in interventional studies with a longer follow-up (9 months and 15.1 months). However, the combination of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors + methotrexate (MTX) was associated with a rise in gingival inflammation. Due to the considerable heterogeneity of the study designs, a meta-analysis could not reasonably be performed.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the available studies, there is evidence to suggest that bDMARD monotherapy may improve the periodontal condition of RA patients with periodontal disease to a certain extent; the concomitant medication of TNF inhibitor + MTX could worsen gingival inflammation. More data are required to understand the impact of RA therapies on periodontal health.

A Review of Strategies for Enhancing Clarity and Reader Accessibility of Qualitative Research Results

Objective. To characterize elements of the results section of qualitative research reports that make findings more accessible to readers. Methods. Two analytical methods were used for this review. First, published reviews and textbooks written by experts outlining how to evaluate qualitative research were retrieved and reviewed to identify common elements that enhance clarity of the results section. In the second analysis, the authors analyzed the results sections of a subset of qualitative studies to identify, from a reader's point of view, aspects that enhanced and detracted from communication of the results. Findings. Four elements improve accessibility of the results section for readers of qualitative research reports. Content, the first element, describes what information the reader should look for in the results section. Style of results, the second element, identifies wording choices that improve reader accessibility and understanding. Narrative flow, the third element, describes a results section that flows smoothly and logically. Structural cohesiveness, the final element, outlines effective organization of the results section. Results. While authors take several approaches to the presentation of results in qualitative research reports, some strategies appear to be more common and effective than others. The efficient presentation of results can impact a reader's assessment of the quality and credibility of a study. Identified content and stylistic elements should be considered by authors hoping to make the results of their qualitative research more accessible and comprehensible to readers.

Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool

BACKGROUND

Qualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly used alongside reviews of effectiveness to inform guidelines and other decisions. To support this use, the GRADE-CERQual approach was developed to assess and communicate the confidence we have in findings from reviews of qualitative research. One component of this approach requires an appraisal of the methodological limitations of studies contributing data to a review finding. Diverse critical appraisal tools for qualitative research are currently being used. However, it is unclear which tool is most appropriate for informing a GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence.

METHODOLOGY

We searched for tools that were explicitly intended for critically appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research. We searched the reference lists of existing methodological reviews for critical appraisal tools, and also conducted a systematic search in June 2016 for tools published in health science and social science databases. Two reviewers screened identified titles and abstracts, and then screened the full text of potentially relevant articles. One reviewer extracted data from each article and a second reviewer checked the extraction. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach to code checklist criteria from each identified tool and to organise these into themes.

RESULTS

We identified 102 critical appraisal tools: 71 tools had previously been included in methodological reviews, and 31 tools were identified from our systematic search. Almost half of the tools were published after 2010. Few authors described how their tool was developed, or why a new tool was needed. After coding all criteria, we developed a framework that included 22 themes. None of the tools included all 22 themes. Some themes were included in up to 95 of the tools.

CONCLUSION

It is problematic that researchers continue to develop new tools without adequately examining the many tools that already exist. Furthermore, the plethora of tools, old and new, indicates a lack of consensus regarding the best tool to use, and an absence of empirical evidence about the most important criteria for assessing the methodological limitations of qualitative research, including in the context of use with GRADE-CERQual.

Validation transculturelle de contenu de la version franco-canadienne de l’échelle COREQ

Purpose: The main purpose of this article is to produce a French-Canadian translation of the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) scale under the proposed name "échelle COREQ" and to assess the transcultural validity of its content. The secondary purpose is to examine the inter-rater reliability of the French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale. Method: A modified approach to Vallerand's methodology (1989) for cross-cultural validation was used. First, a parallel back-translation of the COREQ scale was performed, by both professionals and clinicians. Next, a first committee of experts(P1) examined the translations to create a first draft of the French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale. This draft was then evaluated and modified by a second committee of experts (P2). Finally, 28future professionals (master's students in physiotherapy) rated this second draft of the tool for clarity using a seven-point scale (1:very clear; 7:very ambiguous). The principal co-investigators then reviewed the problematic elements and proposed final changes. Two independent raters used this French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale to assess 13qualitative studies that were published in French after the year2007. The kappa coefficient was used to examine inter-rate reliability. Results: The different elements of the final version of the COREQ scale received an average ambiguity rating between 1.04 and 2.56. These low values show a high level of clarity for the French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale. In relation to the total score of the COREQ scale, inter-rater reliability (n = 2) is considered to be average to excellent for 62.5% of individual elements, according to the kappa values obtained. Conclusions: A valid French-Canadian version of the COREQ scale was created using this rigorous five-step process.