"It's valid and reliable" is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision Aids
Background. This review systematically appraises the quality of reporting of measures used in trials to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and presents recommendations for minimum reporting standards. Methods. We reviewed measures of decision quality and decision process in...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
SAGE Publications
2014
|
| Subjects: |
| _version_ | 1825719817626189824 |
|---|---|
| author | Sepucha, K.R. Matlock, D.D. Wills, C.E. Ropka, M. Joseph-Williams, N. Stacey, D. Ng, Chirk Jenn Levin, C. Lally, J. Borkhoff, C.M. |
| author_facet | Sepucha, K.R. Matlock, D.D. Wills, C.E. Ropka, M. Joseph-Williams, N. Stacey, D. Ng, Chirk Jenn Levin, C. Lally, J. Borkhoff, C.M. |
| author_sort | Sepucha, K.R. |
| collection | UM |
| description | Background. This review systematically appraises the quality of reporting of measures used in trials to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and presents recommendations for minimum reporting standards. Methods. We reviewed measures of decision quality and decision process in 86 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers. Results. Information from 178 instances of use of measures was abstracted. Very few studies reported data on the performance of measures, with reliability (21) and validity (16) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance. The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications. Conclusions. Very little is reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards are proposed to enable authors to prepare study reports, editors and reviewers to evaluate submitted papers, and readers to appraise published studies. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T05:25:33Z |
| format | Article |
| id | um.eprints-10168 |
| institution | Universiti Malaya |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T05:25:33Z |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publisher | SAGE Publications |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | um.eprints-101682019-09-26T06:19:35Z http://eprints.um.edu.my/10168/ "It's valid and reliable" is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision Aids Sepucha, K.R. Matlock, D.D. Wills, C.E. Ropka, M. Joseph-Williams, N. Stacey, D. Ng, Chirk Jenn Levin, C. Lally, J. Borkhoff, C.M. R Medicine Background. This review systematically appraises the quality of reporting of measures used in trials to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and presents recommendations for minimum reporting standards. Methods. We reviewed measures of decision quality and decision process in 86 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers. Results. Information from 178 instances of use of measures was abstracted. Very few studies reported data on the performance of measures, with reliability (21) and validity (16) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance. The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications. Conclusions. Very little is reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards are proposed to enable authors to prepare study reports, editors and reviewers to evaluate submitted papers, and readers to appraise published studies. SAGE Publications 2014 Article PeerReviewed Sepucha, K.R. and Matlock, D.D. and Wills, C.E. and Ropka, M. and Joseph-Williams, N. and Stacey, D. and Ng, Chirk Jenn and Levin, C. and Lally, J. and Borkhoff, C.M. (2014) "It's valid and reliable" is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision Aids. Medical Decision Making, 34 (5). pp. 560-566. ISSN 0272-989X, DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14528381 <https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14528381>. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14528381 doi:10.1177/0272989X14528381 |
| spellingShingle | R Medicine Sepucha, K.R. Matlock, D.D. Wills, C.E. Ropka, M. Joseph-Williams, N. Stacey, D. Ng, Chirk Jenn Levin, C. Lally, J. Borkhoff, C.M. "It's valid and reliable" is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision Aids |
| title | "It's valid and reliable" is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision Aids |
| title_full | "It's valid and reliable" is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision Aids |
| title_fullStr | "It's valid and reliable" is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision Aids |
| title_full_unstemmed | "It's valid and reliable" is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision Aids |
| title_short | "It's valid and reliable" is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision Aids |
| title_sort | it s valid and reliable is not enough critical appraisal of reporting of measures in trials evaluating patient decision aids |
| topic | R Medicine |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sepuchakr itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids AT matlockdd itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids AT willsce itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids AT ropkam itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids AT josephwilliamsn itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids AT staceyd itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids AT ngchirkjenn itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids AT levinc itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids AT lallyj itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids AT borkhoffcm itsvalidandreliableisnotenoughcriticalappraisalofreportingofmeasuresintrialsevaluatingpatientdecisionaids |