Evaluation of the reporting quality of observational studies in master of public health dissertations in China

THE USE OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG COMPARATIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES IN ORTHODONTICS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To identify and summarize the presence and characteristics of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) within comparative observational studies published in 5 leading orthodontic journals.

METHODS

Electronic searching was performed to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) related comparative observational studies published in selected journals between 2015 and 2021. Two authors extracted the characteristics of each included study independently and in duplicate and summarized the dPROs and dPROMs used in these studies. All dPROs were classified into 2 general types (oral health-related quality of life [OHRQoL] and others), while dPROMs were divided into 3 categories (single-item questionnaires, generic multiple-item questionnaires, and specific multiple-item questionnaires). In addition, dPROMs were examined, if they evaluated the 4 dimensions of OHRQoL (oral function, orofacial pain, orofacial appearance, and psychosocial impact).

RESULTS

A total of 683 observational studies were eligible and included of which 117 (17.1%) used dPROs and dPROMs. Seven different dPROs (OHRQoL, patients' satisfaction with treatment, preferences, concerns, compliance, duration, and unwanted events) and 33 different dPROMs (including 8 single-item questionnaires, 11 generic multiple-item questionnaires, and 14 specific multiple-item questionnaires) were identified in these studies. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO (92/117, 78.6%), while Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14) was the most frequently used dPROM (20/92, 21.7%). In terms of study design, cross-sectional studies had the highest proportion of dPRO usage (62/148, 41.9%), followed by cohort studies (63/505, 12.5%) and case-control studies (1/30, 3.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one-sixth of comparative observational studies published in leading orthodontic journals could reflect patients' perspectives. Observational studies in orthodontics need to provide more patient-important information through the use of dPROs and dPROMs.

Risk of permanent medical impairment after road traffic crashes: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the risk of permanent disability related to road traffic injuries (RTIs) and to determine the implications for future research regarding permanent impairment following road traffic crashes.

METHODS

We conducted this systematic review according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement. An extended search of the literature was carried out in 4 major electronic databases for scientific research papers published from January 1980 to February 2020. Two teams include 2 reviewers each, screened independently the titles/abstracts, and after that, reviewed the full text of the included studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. A third reviewer was assessed any discrepancy and all data of included studies were extracted. Finally, the data were systematically analyzed, and the related data were interpreted.

RESULTS

Five out of 16 studies were evaluated as high-quality according to the STROBE checklist. Fifteen studies ranked the initial injuries according to the abbreviated injury scale 2005. Five studies reported the total risk of permanent medical impairment following RTIs which varied from 2% to 23% for car occupants and 2.8% to 46% for cyclists. Seven studies reported the risk of permanent medical impairment of the different body regions. Eleven studies stated the most common body region to develop permanent impairment, of which 6 studies demonstrated that injuries of the cervical spine and neck were at the highest risk of becoming permanent injured.

CONCLUSION

The finding of this review revealed the necessity of providing a globally validated method to evaluate permanent medical impairment following RTIs across the world. This would facilitate decision-making about traffic injuries and efficient management to reduce the financial and psychological burdens for individuals and communities.

Qualitative research methods in medical dissertations: an observational methodological study on prevalence and reporting quality of dissertation abstracts in a German university

Background

Qualitative methods offer a unique contribution to health research. Academic dissertations in the medical field provide an opportunity to explore research practice. Our aim was to assess the use of qualitative methods in dissertations in the medical field.

Methods

By means of a methodological observational study, an analysis of all academic medical dissertations’ abstracts between 1998 and 2018 in a repository databank of a large medical university faculty in Germany was performed. This included MD dissertations (Dr. med. (dent.)) and medical science dissertations (Dr. sc. hum.). All abstracts including “qualitativ*” were screened for studies using qualitative research methods. Data were extracted from abstracts using a category grid considering a) general characteristics (year, language, degree type), b) discipline, c) study design (mixed methods/qualitative only, data conduction, data analysis), d) sample (size and participants) and e) technologies used (data analysis software and recording technology). Thereby reporting quality was assessed.

Results

In total, 103 abstracts of medical dissertations between 1998 and 2018 (1.4% of N = 7619) were included, 60 of MD dissertations and 43 of medical sciences dissertations. Half of the abstracts (n = 51) referred to dissertations submitted since 2014. Most abstracts related to public health/hygiene (n = 27) and general practice (n = 26), followed by medical psychology (n = 19). About half of the studies (n = 47) used qualitative research methods exclusively, the other half (n = 56) used mixed methods. For data collection, primarily individual interviews were used (n = 80), followed by group interviews (n = 33) and direct observation (n = 11). Patients (n = 36), physicians (n = 36) and healthcare professionals (n = 17) were the most frequent research participants. Incomplete reporting of participants and data analysis was common (n = 67). Nearly half of the abstracts (n = 46) lacked information on how data was analysed, most of the remaining (n = 43) used some form of content analysis. In summary, 36 abstracts provided all crucial data (participants, sample size,; data collection and analysis method).

Conclusion

A small number of academic dissertations used qualitative research methods. About a third of these reported all key aspects of the methods used in the abstracts. Further research on the quality of choice and reporting of methods for qualitative research in dissertations is recommended.