Use Of Quality Assessment Tools Research Articles

Use of Systematic Review Terminology and Methodological Quality in Children’s Social Care

ABSTRACT Purpose: What Works for Children’s Social Care has developed an “Evidence Store” to improve awareness of evidence from systematic reviews in children’s social care. During review selection, some reviews were excluded due to methodological flaws, which this paper considers. Methods: Reviews were identified using a systematic search and screening process. Where reviews were identified as systematic reviews or meta-analyses, exclusion reasons were recorded and analyzed. Results: The main methodological issue related to quality assessment, which was not conducted in the majority of cases. Several different types of quality assessment tools were used: scales, checklists, and domain-based approaches. Conclusions: This is the first study to examine the use of systematic review terminology in combination with the use of quality assessment tools in reviews in children’s social care. Consideration of appropriate systematic review methods will enable researchers to generate high-quality evidence and support delivery of evidence-based care.

Use of quality assessment tools within systematic reviews in orthodontics during the last decade: looking for a threshold?

To record the prevalence and extent of use of quality assessment/ risk of bias tools in orthodontic systematic reviews and to identify whether systematic reviews authors stipulated a threshold during the evaluation process of the primary studies included in systematic reviews, published across the previous decade and until now. Associations with publication characteristics including the journal of publication, year, the inclusion of a meta-analysis, design of primary studies and others, were sought. Electronic search within 6 orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews from 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. The outcomes of interest pertained to the use, type and extent of quality appraisal/ risk of bias tools utilized as a standard process within the systematic reviews, and also whether a threshold had been stipulated by the systematic reviews authors. Predictor variables included journal, year of publication, geographic region, number of authors, involvement of a methodologist, type of systematic reviews, inclusion of meta-analysis, type/design of primary studies. A total of 262 systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion, with 41 quality appraisal/ risk of bias sets of tools being described either jointly or in isolation. One-third of the systematic reviews of the present sample (88/262; 33.6%) included a threshold, while this was mostly represented by the stipulation of sensitivity analyses in this respect (64/88; 72.8%). Journal of publication (non-Cochrane systematic reviews versus Cochrane systematic reviews: adjusted odds ratio, OR: 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01, 0.16; P < 0.001) and inclusion of a meta-analysis (adjusted OR: 8.76; 95%CI: 4.18, 18.37; P < 0.001), were identified as significant predictors for preplanning of thresholds. Quality assessment tools for primary studies are largely used and varied in orthodontic systematic reviews, while a threshold-level has been stipulated in only one third. Additional efforts should be endorsed by the scientific community, to embrace more straightforward adoption of the most rigorous reporting guidelines in this respect.

Improvement of the Ergonomic Quality of the Work Process

Abstract The improvement of production processes is currently one of the key elements of the company's competitiveness. In the pursuit of profit, the rationality of streamlined processes is not always taken into account, i.e. that both process needs and these of employees should be considered. Caring of the comfort of work, of adjusting the workplace to the employee is the main goal of ergonomic activity. On the level of implementation of ergonomic demands depends not only the quality and modernity of the products, but also the ergonomics of the workstation and the production process, forming the basis for better quality and more efficient work. The Improvement of the quality of the ergonomic workplace is possible on the basis of a properly conducted assessment, using a variety of tools. This article presents the evaluation and ergonomic analysis of the work process at four production workplaces, and then indicates the directions of changes. The analysis included elements of physical effort: energy expenditure, static load and traffic monotype. Traditional tools were used, such as OWAS, REBA, and also the use of quality assessment tools (Ishikawa diagram, Pareto-Lorenzo diagram) was proposed in order to suggest solutions to improve the ergonomic quality of the workstations under analysis.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Tissue Doppler Index E/e' for Evaluating Left Ventricular Filling Pressure and Diastolic Dysfunction/Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BackgroundTissue Doppler index E/è is used clinically and in multidisciplinary research for estimation of left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP) and diastolic dysfunction (DD)/heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Its diagnostic accuracy is not well studied.Methods and ResultsFrom the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases, we identified 24 studies reporting E/è and invasive LVFP in preserved EF (≥50%). In random‐effects models, E/è had poor to mediocre linear correlation with LVFP. Summary sensitivity and specificity (with 95% CIs) for the American Society of Echocardiography–recommended E/è cutoffs (lateral, mean, and septal, respectively) to identify elevated LVFP was estimated by using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic analysis. Summary sensitivity was 30% (9–48%), 37% (13–61%), and 24% (6–46%), and summary specificity was 92% (82–100%), 91% (80–99%), and 98% (92–100%). Positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was <5 for lateral and mean E/è. LR+ was slightly >10 for septal E/è obtained from 4 studies (cumulative sample size <220). For excluding elevated LVFP, summary sensitivity for E/è (lateral, mean, and septal, respectively) was 64% (38–86%), 36% (3–74%), and 50% (14–81%), while summary specificity was 73% (54–89%), 83% (49–100%), and 89% (66–100%). Because of data set limitations, meaningful inference for identifying HFpEF by using E/è could not be drawn. With the use of quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies questionnaire), we found substantial risks of bias and/or applicability.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to support that E/è can reliably estimate LVFP in preserved EF. The diagnostic accuracy of E/è to identify/exclude elevated LVFP and DD/HFpEF is limited and requires further validation in a well‐designed prospective clinical trial.

PRM225 - Evaluation of Quality Assessment Tools for Non-Randomised Controlled Trials Assessing Surgical Interventions: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

Evaluating the effectiveness and safety of surgical techniques, operations, and involved medical devices is relatively difficult, sometimes unethical, with randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Non-randomised designs are commonly applied and used to inform decision making. Quality assessment (QA) methods for these studies have previously been reviewed, but not specifically for their applicability to non-RCTs in surgical interventions. The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate which QA tools have been used in this research field and to critically appraise these tools. We systematically searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) and Health Technology Assessments. Systematic reviews appraising the quality of non-RCTs on surgical interventions were included. In total, 1,741 potentially relevant citations were identified. After removing duplicates, 1,525 citations were screened. Of these, 159 full text references were reviewed and 85 systematic reviews met predefined inclusion criteria. Five QA methods were most commonly employed: Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) or modified NOS (28%); checklists developed by authors (15%); the Cochrane checklist or modified version (11%); modified checklists from other authors (5%); applying disease-specific QA tools (5%). The reliability and applicability of the most commonly employed tool in this research field, NOS, were questioned in included reviews, corresponding with concerns on the validity of the NOS reported in recently published literature of research methodology. The available evidence demonstrates a lack of consensus on the use of QA tools for non-RCTs assessing surgical interventions. Various methods have been adapted or newly developed by researchers, and the most commonly applied QA tool (NOS) may not be fit for purpose in this field of research. There is an urgent need for a validated QA tool to appraise the quality of evidence to help inform evidence-based decision making on the use of surgical devices and types of surgical approaches.

Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent

ObjectivesTo assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis. Study Design and SettingWe searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014. ResultsThree hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall. ConclusionWe found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for a more transparent and objective appraisal of the evidence. They may decrease the number of false-negative results and prevent delays in the introduction of effective interventions into clinical practice. However, as for any other tool, their misuse can result in severely misleading results. In this article,we discuss the main steps that should be taken when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, namely the preparation of a review protocol, identification of eligible trials, and data extraction, pooling of treatment effects across trials, investigation of potential reasons for differences in treatment effects across trials, and complete reporting of the review methods and findings.We also discuss common pitfalls that should be avoided, including the use of quality assessment tools to derive summary quality scores, pooling of data across trials as if they belonged to a single large trial, and inappropriate uses of meta-regression that could result in misleading estimates of treatment effects because of regression to the mean or the ecological fallacy. If conducted and reported properly, systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence, which may eventually facilitate clinical decision making.

Method of assessing the quality of the design process of construction equipment with the use of DFSS (design for Six Sigma)

Abstract This paper presents the methodology for assessing the process of designing and constructing vehicles and machines, which implements Design for Six Sigma tools. An important purpose of this paper is to determine how defects affect the quality of the structure, based on the criteria of its conformance. The paper also presents the requirements needed to implement the method and the benefits arising from the use of quality assessment tools. The presented method enables the quality assessment of the design and construction process, which also serves as quality assurance method due to the possibility to avoid potential defects.