The framing of research questions using the PICOT format in randomized controlled trials of venous ulcer disease is suboptimal: A systematic survey

Key features of adolescent inpatient units and development of a checklist to improve consistency in reporting of settings

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Little is known about adolescent inpatient units, key features which define them, and how these essential services operate and deliver care. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Adolescent inpatient unit studies are limited in their descriptions of settings in terms of how they operate and key features. The proposed preliminary checklist is a practical tool to assist clinicians, policy makers, and researchers when reporting to ensure comprehensive descriptions of adolescent inpatient settings. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: This could be used to inform service design processes for inpatient and other mental health service models which is of critical importance in the context of reforms and implementation of these in Australia currently. Greater attention to operational models, services, and philosophies of practice will improve reporting and allow for the advancement of knowledge, comparison of study results, and a clearer direction for mental health nursing clinicians and researchers. ABSTRACT: Introduction Adolescent inpatient units care for vulnerable population groups; however, little is known about how these essential services operate and deliver care. Aims To examine the descriptions of adolescent mental health inpatient units in Australian and international research publications and to identify key features which were used to define them. A secondary aim was to develop a checklist to improve consistency when reporting on the operations and services delivered within adolescent mental health inpatient units (both public and private). Methods Five electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were systematically searched. We included studies that provided descriptions of operations and services within adolescent inpatient units where participants had a mean age between 12 and 25. Narrative synthesis was used to explore the similarities and differences between descriptions of settings. Results Twenty-eight studies were identified, which varied in their descriptions of adolescent inpatient units, providing inconsistent information to inform best practice. Discussion Studies lack consistency and comprehensive detail when describing the operational models within inpatient units, making interpretation challenging. Consequently, a preliminary checklist is proposed to improve reporting of adolescent inpatient units.

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

BACKGROUND

Methodological studies - studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports - play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

MAIN BODY

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a "frequently asked questions" format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

CONCLUSION

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review

Background

A relatively novel method of appraisal, methodological reviews (MRs) are used to synthesize information on the methods used in health research. There are currently no guidelines available to inform the reporting of MRs.

Objectives

This pilot review aimed to determine the feasibility of a full review and the need for reporting guidance for methodological reviews.

Methods

Search strategy: We conducted a search of PubMed, restricted to 2017 to include the most recently published studies, using different search terms often used to describe methodological reviews: "literature survey" OR "meta-epidemiologic* review" OR "meta-epidemiologic* survey" OR "methodologic* review" OR "methodologic* survey" OR "systematic survey."Data extraction: Study characteristics including country, nomenclature, number of included studies, search strategy, a priori protocol use, and sampling methods were extracted in duplicate and summarized.Outcomes: Primary feasibility outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the search terms (criteria for success of feasibility set at sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 70%).Analysis: The estimates are reported as a point estimate (95% confidence interval).

Results

Two hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved and 31 were included in the final analysis. The most accurate search term was "meta-epidemiological" (sensitivity [Sn] 48.39; 95% CI 31.97-65.16; specificity [Sp] 97.56; 94.42-98.95). The majority of studies were published by authors from Canada (n = 12, 38.7%), and Japan and USA (n = 4, 12.9% each). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of included studies in the MRs was 77 (13-1127). Reporting of a search strategy was done in most studies (n = 23, 74.2%). The use of a pre-published protocol (n = 7, 22.6%) or a justifiable sampling method (n = 5, 16.1%) occurred rarely.

Conclusions

Using the MR nomenclature identified, it is feasible to build a comprehensive search strategy and conduct a full review. Given the variation in reporting practices and nomenclature attributed to MRs, there is a need for guidance on standardized and transparent reporting of MRs. Future guideline development would likely include stakeholders from Canada, USA, and Japan.