1,721,001 research outputs found
Critical appraisal of systematic reviews with costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes : an ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report
Full text linkA systematic review (SR) can provide rigorous and complete evidence to support decision makers who consider both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health interventions. A dramatic increase in published health economic (HE) studies, more specifically cost and cost-effectiveness studies, has resulted in the consequent proliferation of systematic reviews with cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes (SR-CCEO).First, such reviews help to indentify strenghts and weaknesses in HE studies, modelling methodologies, and data for modelling inputs. Second, SR-CCEOs may be informative for decisionmakers in resource allocation decisions for health interventions, especially in countries with limited capacity for health technology assessment (HTA). For the purpose of this article, cost studies are defined as studies analyzing the costs of healthcare interventions, includingcost descriptions and cost-of-illness (economic burden of disease) studies. By cost-effectivenessstudies we mean full economic evaluations, including cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-consequence analysis. Sometimes cost studies might be based on an explicit comparison of alternatives.However, it is challenging to appropriately interpret SR-CCEOs owing to their heterogeneity in applied methods and reporting, and furthermore, owing to variability in clinical and health settings in the original studies they include. Methodologic guidance and checklists that improve the quality of SRs on clinical evidence or decrease risk of bias in their interpretation or synthesis have limited applicability for SR-CCEOs. There is little specific methodologicguidance for SR-CCEOs.Although Chapter 20 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions of the Cochrane Collaboration 12 and 3 articles related to informing clinical practice guidelines provide guidance, their recommendations do not focus on evaluating the quality of conduct or the risk of bias in SR-CCEOs. A critical analysis of guidelines on conducting and reporting SR-CCEOs identified multiple disagreements in these recommendations, suggesting that a standardized approach to conducting SR-CCEOs is needed.Making universal recommendations for SR-CCEOs is difficult because they differ in several important aspects, in particular, with regard to their search and inclusion criteria, such as the types of studies included (trial or model-based, cost, or cost-effectiveness), or in reporting solely economic characteristics or economic data alongside clinical outcomes. They also have different objectives (eg, to assess variability in outcomes and synthesize the findings) to identify the evidence gaps, or to assess the methods used.Overall, SR-CCEO reliability and usefulness will improve with good practice guidance for SR-CCEOs with different objectives. Thus, ISPOR (The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research) established a global, multistakeholder, multidisciplinary expert task force to address this need (Appendix 1 in Supplemental Materials found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.002). Although general recommendations on conducting SR-CCEOs are provided, the main goal is guidance on critical appraisal of SR-CCEOs regarding their quality and risk of bias. This report, which includes the ISPOR Criteria for Cost(-Effectiveness) Review Outcomes (CiCERO) Checklist, will assist researchers, producers of health technologies, and evidence users (decision makers/commissioners). The task force categorized the recommendations according to the 6 stages of conducting an SR-CCEO (Table 1).Fil: Mandrik, Olena (Lena). University Of Sheffield (university Of Sheffield);Fil: Severens, J.L. (Hans). Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam; Países BajosFil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Ghabri, Salah. French National Authority For Health; FranciaFil: Hamel, Candyce. University Of Ottawa. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; CanadáFil: Mathes, Tim. Universität Witten/Herdecke; AlemaniaFil: Vale, Luke. University of Newcastle; Reino UnidoFil: Wisløff, Torbjørn. Uit The Arctic University Of Norway; NoruegaFil: Goldhaber Fiebert, Jeremy D.. University of Stanford; Estados Unido
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Determinants of participation in an online community of practice (OCoP)
No full textIn 2008, a cohort of Inuit researchers met in Ottawa for a two-week training course on Inuit health research and planning. A means for ongoing communication after the course was necessary to build on their acquired knowledge. Research shows that online communities of practice (OCoPs) are often unsuccessful due to factors such as a lack of time and a lack of member involvement in design of the OCoP. The objective of this research was to find the determinants that impact participation in an OCoP of members from a cohort of Inuit researchers. An open-ended interview questionnaire was developed and members were interviewed. Results show lack of time as the main barrier to participation. Involvement in the development of an updated OCoP is of interest to many members. In a culture that has been built and sustained by knowledge sharing, an OCoP is a legitimate tool
Brzi pregledi literature: definiranje, ocjenjivanje metoda i olakšavanje probira korištenjem umjetne inteligencije
No full textIntroduction: Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard in collating available
evidence related to a specific question and are used to inform policy for health care public
health. They are considered to be essential in producing trustworthy guidelines. However, they
are time- and resource-intensive undertakings which may not meet the timeline of stakeholders
and policy-makers when urgent answers are required. The aims of rapid reviews are to produce
evidence reviews in a timely manner, while maintaining rigorous and robust methods.
However, to date, the only consensus around a definition of a rapid review is that a formal
definition does not exist. Additionally, there is no standardized set of methods for rapid reviews,
nor is there a comprehensive review which has compiled empirically evaluated rapid review
methods and evaluated the impact of these abbreviated methods. The aim of this doctoral
dissertation was to: (i) identify how rapid reviews have been defined in the literature and
perform a thematic analysis of these definitions to identify the key themes; (ii) identify and
create a repository of empirically evaluated methods abbreviations, and identify any gaps in the
research; and (iii) evaluate the reduction in the screening burden and perform of an artificial
intelligence and active machine-learning tool in an online systematic review software.
Methods: RR definitions: A systematic scoping review identifying rapid reviews published
between 2017 and January 2019 was performed. Definitions of rapid reviews were extracted
verbatim from these rapid reviews and a thematic analysis was performed to identify the key
themes which should be included when defining a rapid review. RR methods: A systematic
scoping review identifying formally evaluated rapid review methods abbreviations published
from 1997 onward was performed. In order to create a comprehensive repository of rapid
review documents, additional studies (e.g., around guidance on conducting rapid reviews,
discussing terminology) were identified. All publications were divided into one of four main
categories based on the purpose of the publication. Those that formally evaluated rapid review
methods abbreviations were mapped to the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane
Intervention Reviews (MECIR) to determine if they met these criteria. Lastly, an experimental
evaluation was conducted in DistillerSR ® on 10 completed systematic reviews, using the
artificial intelligence simulation tool, to measure the reduction in the screening burden and
accuracy (i.e., how many relevant records were missed) when prioritized screening using active
machine-learning was employed.
26
Results: RR definitions: A total of 204 definitions that could be thematically analyzed were
identified in 216 rapid reviews and 90 rapid review methods papers. Eight major themes were
identified, with four themes found in 48.5% or more of the definitions: Theme 4: Compare and
contrast to SRs (68.1%; 139/204), Theme 2: Variation in shortcut methods (54.9%; 112/204),
with Theme 1: Accelerated/rapid process and Theme 6: Resource efficiency rationale tied
(48.5%; 99/204 each). This lead to a suggested definition of “A rapid review is a form of
knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review
through streamlining or omitting a variety of methods to produce evidence in a resourceefficient manner.” RR methods: Ninety rapid review methods papers were identified, of which
14 formally evaluated rapid review methods abbreviations addressing several, but not all, key
dimensions related to the conduct of a review. Only a cursory mapping to MECIR criteria was
possible, as insufficient information impeded the ability to determine if criteria were met.
Active machine-learning prioritization tool: The active machine-learning tool, employing
prioritized screening, greatly reduced the screening burden of the 10 systematic reviews that
were evaluated. The median percentage of studies required to be screened to identify 95% of
the records included at the title and abstract level (true recall @ 95%) was 47.1% (IQR: 37.5 to
58.0%). Among the 5% that were not yet identified as included (i.e., title and abstract false
negatives), none were included in the final review, resulting in 100% accuracy.
Conclusion: The emergence of rapid reviews, highlighted by the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, requires consistency in how they are defined, in order to identify and produce a
homogenous set of products regardless of the term used to identify them. Producers of rapid
reviews also need guidance on which abbreviated methods may be used to keep potential bias
minimized. Lastly, active machine-learning is a viable method to reduce the screening burden
and was shown to be very accurate.Uvod: Sustavni pregledi smatraju se zlatnim standardom u prikupljanju dostupnih dokaza koji
se odnose na određeno pitanje i koriste se za informiranje politika javnog zdravstva. Smatraju
se ključnim u stvaranju pouzdanih smjernica. Međutim, izrada sustavnih pregleda zahtijeva
vrijeme i resurse, i možda neće biti napravljeni dovoljno brzo za dionike i donositelje odluka
kada su potrebni hitni odgovori. Ciljevi brzih pregleda (engl. rapid reviews, RR) su pravodobno
izraditi preglede dokaza, uz zadržavanje rigoroznih i robusnih metoda. Međutim, do danas je
jedini konsenzus oko definicije RR taj da formalna definicija ne postoji. Uz to, ne postoji
standardizirani skup metoda za RR, niti postoji sveobuhvatan pregled literature koji je
empirijski procijenio metode RR i procijenio učinak tih skraćenih metoda. Cilj ove doktorske
disertacije bio je: (i) utvrditi kako su RR definirani u literaturi i provesti tematsku analizu tih
definicija kako bi se prepoznale ključne teme; (ii) pronaći i napraviti repozitorij empirijski
procijenjenih skraćenih metoda za izradu RR te prepoznati područja u kojima su potrebna nova
istraživanja; i (iii) procijeniti može li se olakšati probir literature korištenjem umjetne
inteligencije i aktivnog alata za strojno učenje u internetskom računalnom programu za izradu
sustavnog pregleda.
Metodologija objedinjenih radova: Definicije brzih pregleda literature: Napravljen je
pretražni sustavni pregled (engl. scoping systematic review) kojim su nađeni RR objavljeni
između 2017. i siječnja 2019. godine. Definicije RR izvučene su doslovno iz tih RR i provedena
je tematska analiza kako bi se utvrdile ključne teme koje bi trebale biti uključene prilikom
definiranja RR.
Metode RR: Napravljen je pretražni sustavni pregled kojim su pronađene metode za skraćenje
RR, u radovima objavljenim od 1997. nadalje. Kako bi se napravio opsežan repozitorij
dokumenata o RR, pronađene su dodatne studije (npr. o smjernicama za provođenje brzih
pregleda, rasprava o terminologiji). Sve su publikacije podijeljene u jednu od četiri glavne
kategorije na temelju svrhe publikacije. Oni koji su formalno ocjenjivali skraćene metode za
RR mapirane su pomoću smjernica za pisanje Cochraneovih sustavnih pregleda MECIR (engl.
Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews) kako bi se utvrdilo
ispunjavaju li te kriterije.
Na koncu je napravljena eksperimentalna evaluacija u programu DistillerSR® na 10 završenih
sustavnih pregleda korištenjem alata za simulaciju umjetne inteligencije kako bi se izmjerilo
24
smanjenje opterećenja i točnosti probira (tj. koliko je relevantnih zapisa propušteno) kada se
koristi probir pomoću strojnog učenja.
Rezultati: Definicije RR: U 216 RR i 90 članaka o metodama RR pronađene su ukupno 204
definicije koje se mogu tematski analizirati. Definirano je osam glavnih tema, a četiri teme
pronađene su u 48,5% ili više definicija: Tema 4: Usporedba i kontrast sa sustavnim pregledima
(SR) (68,1%; 139/204), Tema 2: Varijacije u skraćenim metodama (54,9%; 112/204), Tema 1:
Ubrzani / brzi postupak i Tema 6: Obrazloženje obrazloženja učinkovitosti resursa (48,5%;
99/204 svaka). To je dovelo do predložene definicije "RR je oblik sinteze znanja koji ubrzava
postupak provođenja tradicionalnog sustavnog pregleda putem racionalizacije ili izostavljanja
različitih metoda kako bi se brže došlo do potrebnih dokaza."
Metode RR: Pronađeno je devedeset radova o metodama RR, od kojih je 14 formalno ocijenilo
skraćene metode RR koje se odnose na nekoliko, ali ne sve, ključnih dimenzija povezanih s
provođenjem pregleda literature. Bilo je moguće samo površno mapiranje kriterija MECIR-a,
budući da su nedovoljne informacije priječile mogućnost utvrđivanja jesu li kriteriji
zadovoljeni.
Alat za prioritizaciju aktivnog strojnog učenja: Alat za aktivno strojno učenje, koji koristi
prioritetni probir, uvelike je smanjio teret probira za 10 sustavnih pregleda koji su procijenjeni.
Medijan postotka zapisa koje je trebalo pregledati kako bi se pronašlo 95% zapisa uključenih
na razini naslova i sažetka iznosio je 47,1% (interkvartalni raspon: 37,5 do 58,0%). Među 5%
koji nisu prepoznati kao uključivi (tj. lažno-negativni naslovi i sažeci), niti jedan nije bio
uključen u konačni pregled, što je dovelo do 100%-tne točnosti.
Zaključak: Pojava RR zahtijeva dosljednost u njihovom definiranju kako bi se u literaturi
mogao pronaći i napraviti homogeni skup proizvoda, bez obzira na termin koji se koristi za
njihovu identifikaciju. Autorima koji rade RR trebaju smjernice o tome koje se skraćene metode
mogu koristiti kako bi se potencijalna pristranost svela na najmanju moguću mjeru. Na koncu,
aktivno strojno učenje održiva je metoda za smanjenje opterećenja probirom literature, koja se
pokazala vrlo preciznom
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Determinants of participation in an online community of practice (OCoP)
No full textIn 2008, a cohort of Inuit researchers met in Ottawa for a two-week training course on Inuit health research and planning. A means for ongoing communication after the course was necessary to build on their acquired knowledge. Research shows that online communities of practice (OCoPs) are often unsuccessful due to factors such as a lack of time and a lack of member involvement in design of the OCoP. The objective of this research was to find the determinants that impact participation in an OCoP of members from a cohort of Inuit researchers. An open-ended interview questionnaire was developed and members were interviewed. Results show lack of time as the main barrier to participation. Involvement in the development of an updated OCoP is of interest to many members. In a culture that has been built and sustained by knowledge sharing, an OCoP is a legitimate tool
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
