首页> 外文OA文献 >Why do authors derive new cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in the presence of existing rules? A mixed methods study
【2h】

Why do authors derive new cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in the presence of existing rules? A mixed methods study

机译:为什么作者在存在现有规则的情况下得出新的心血管临床预测规则?混合方法研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BackgroundResearchers should examine existing evidence to determine the need for a new study. It is unknown whether developers evaluate existing evidence to justify new cardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs).ObjectiveWe aimed to assess whether authors of cardiovascular CPRs cited existing CPRs, why some authors did not cite existing CPRs, and why they thought existing CPRs were insufficient.MethodDerivation studies of cardiovascular CPRs from the International Register of Clinical Prediction Rules for Primary Care were evaluated. We reviewed the introduction sections to determine whether existing CPRs were cited. Using thematic content analysis, the stated reasons for determining existing cardiovascular CPRs insufficient were explored. Study authors were surveyed via e-mail and post. We asked whether they were aware of any existing cardiovascular CPRs at the time of derivation, how they searched for existing CPRs, and whether they thought it was important to cite existing CPRs.ResultsOf 85 derivation studies included, 48 (56.5%) cited existing CPRs, 33 (38.8%) did not cite any CPR, and four (4.7%) declared there was none to cite. Content analysis identified five categories of existing CPRs insufficiency related to: (1) derivation (5 studies; 11.4% of 44), (2) construct (31 studies; 70.5%), (3) performance (10 studies; 22.7%), (4) transferability (13 studies; 29.5%), and (5) evidence (8 studies; 18.2%). Authors of 54 derivation studies (71.1% of 76 authors contacted) responded to the survey. Twenty-five authors (46.3%) reported they were aware of existing CPR at the time of derivation. Twenty-nine authors (53.7%) declared they conducted a systematic search to identify existing CPRs. Most authors (90.7%) indicated citing existing CPRs was important.ConclusionCardiovascular CPRs are often developed without citing existing CPRs although most authors agree it is important. Common justifications for new CPRs concerned construct, including choice of predictor variables or relevance of outcomes. Developers should clearly justify why new CPRs are needed with reference to existing CPRs to avoid unnecessary duplication.
机译:背景研究人员应检查现有证据,以确定是否需要进行新研究。开发人员是否评估现有证据以证明新的心血管临床预测规则(CPR)是未知的。目的我们旨在评估心血管CPR的作者是否引用了现有CPR,为何有些作者没有引用现有CPR以及为什么他们认为现有CPR不足。方法评估了国际基层医疗临床预测规则注册对心血管CPR的研究。我们查看了介绍部分,以确定是否引用了现有的CPR。使用主题内容分析,探讨了确定现有心血管CPR不足的陈述原因。通过电子邮件和邮寄方式对研究作者进行了调查。我们询问他们在派生时是否知道任何现有的心肺复苏术,他们如何搜索现有的心肺复苏术,以及他们是否认为引用现有的心肺复苏术很重要。结果包括85项衍生研究,其中48例(56.5%)引用了现有的心肺复苏术,有33位(38.8%)没有引用任何心肺复苏术,有4位(4.7%)宣布没有要引用的CPR。内容分析确定了与现有CPR功能不全有关的五种类别:(1)派生(5个研究; 44个中的11.4%),(2)构建(31个研究; 70.5%),(3)性能(10个研究; 22.7%), (4)可转移性(13个研究; 29.5%),以及(5)证据(8个研究; 18.2%)。 54项衍生研究的作者(联系的76位作者中的71.1%)对调查做出了回应。二十五位作者(46.3%)报告说,他们知道派生时已有的CPR。 29位作者(53.7%)宣称他们进行了系统搜索以识别现有的CPR。大多数作者(90.7%)指出引用现有的CPR很重要。结论心血管CPR常常在没有引用现有CPR的情况下发展,尽管大多数作者都认为这很重要。有关新的CPR的常见理由包括构建预测变量或结果的相关性。开发人员应明确说明为什么需要参考现有的CPR来进行新的CPR,以避免不必要的重复。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号