Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review
Por:
Superchi, C, Gonzalez, JA, Sola, I, Cobo, E, Hren, D, Boutron, I
Publicada:
6 mar 2019
Resumen:
BackgroundA strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.MethodsWe conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google (R) for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis.ResultsWe identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of quality'. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer's comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18).ConclusionSeveral tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.
Filiaciones:
Superchi, C:
UPC, Dept Stat & Operat Res, Barcelona Tech, C Jordi Girona 1-3, Barcelona 08034, Spain
INSERM, U1153 Epidemiol & Biostat, Sorbonne Paris Cite Res Ctr CRESS, Methods Therapeut Evaluat Chron Dis Team METHODS, F-75014 Paris, France
Paris Descartes Univ, Sorbonne Paris Cite, Paris, France
Gonzalez, JA:
UPC, Dept Stat & Operat Res, Barcelona Tech, C Jordi Girona 1-3, Barcelona 08034, Spain
Sola, I:
Hosp Santa Creu & Sant Pau, Iberoamer Cochrane Ctr, C St Antoni Maria Claret 167,Pavello 18 Planta O, Barcelona 08025, Spain
CIBER Epidemiol & Salud Publ CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
Cobo, E:
UPC, Dept Stat & Operat Res, Barcelona Tech, C Jordi Girona 1-3, Barcelona 08034, Spain
Hren, D:
Univ Split, Fac Humanities & Social Sci, Dept Psychol, Split, Croatia
Boutron, I:
Hop Hotel Dieu, Ctr Epidemiol Clin, 1 Pl Paris Notre Dame, F-75004 Paris, France
Gold, Green Published
|