Reporting Quality in Math Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities

2021 ◽  
pp. 001440292110508
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson ◽  
Soyoung Park ◽  
Tasia Brafford ◽  
Nicole A. Heller ◽  
Angela R. Crawford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Mathematics Interventions ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Mathematics Intervention ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Researchers and practitioners alike often look to meta-analyses to identify effective practices to use with students with disabilities. The number of meta-analyses in special education has also expanded in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of reporting in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. We applied 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. to 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2020. Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in quality indicator scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of the Quality of Reporting in Mathematics Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities Coding Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Special Education ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Mathematics Interventions ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Meta Analyses

The purpose of this document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 22 meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at-risk of disabilities. The purpose of the systematic review was to evaluate reporting quality in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. To identify meta-analyses for inclusion, we considered peer-reviewed literature published between 2000 and 2020; we searched five education-focused electronic databases, scanned the table of contents of six special education journals, reviewed the curriculum vitae of researchers who frequently publish meta-analyses in mathematics and special education, and scanned the reference lists of meta-analyses that met inclusion criteria. To be included in this systematic review, meta-analyses must have reported on the effectiveness of mathematics-focused interventions, provided a summary effect for a mathematics outcome variable, and included school-aged participants with or at risk of having a disability. We identified 22 meta-analyses for inclusion. We coded each meta-analysis for 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. (2018). Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in QI scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers so that reporting in meta-analyses may be enhanced. Limitations of the current study are that grey literature was not considered for inclusion and that only meta-analyses were included; this limits the generalizability of the results to other research syntheses (e.g., narrative reviews, systematic reviews) and publication types (e.g., dissertations).

scholarly journals Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (11) ◽  
pp. 1456-1466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Monica Gasparini ◽  
Michela Agostini ◽  
Greta Castellini ◽  
Davide Corbetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Item Data ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals. Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively. Results Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13–22 [48%–82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review. Conclusions This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.

scholarly journals Special Education Math Interventions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Mathematics Intervention ◽  
Screening Criteria ◽  
Math Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Quality

The purpose of document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses focused on participants with or at-risk of disabilities. The author drafted this coding protocol based on the meta-analysis quality indicators recommended by Talbott et al. (2018, pp. 248–249); specifically, the author considered the variables presented in Table 1 of Talbott et al. and supplemented the information so that the variables and definitions were specific to the purpose of this systematic review. We coded each meta-analysis for 53 variables across eight categories, including: Quality of Clear Research Questions, Quality of Eligibility Criteria, Quality of Search Procedures, Quality of Screening Criteria, Quality of Coding Procedures, Quality of Research Participants and Contexts, Quality of Data Analysis Plan, and Quality of Reporting Results. The mean interrater reliability across all codes using this protocol was 87.8% (range across categories = 74% –100%).

scholarly journals Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Emary ◽  
Kent J. Stuber ◽  
Lawrence Mbuagbaw ◽  
Mark Oremus ◽  
Paul S. Nolet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Care Research ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Chiropractic Research

Abstract Background Mixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods. Objective To quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality. Methods We will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality. Discussion This will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.

Dataset for Reporting Quality in Math Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson ◽  
Soyoung Park ◽  
Tasia Brafford ◽  
Nicole Heller ◽  
Angela Crawford
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Baldwin ◽  
Rosemary Smith ◽  
Michelle Gibbs ◽  
C Elizabeth Weekes ◽  
Peter W Emery
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Nutritional Supplement ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Oral Nutritional Supplements ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT There is considerable heterogeneity across the findings of systematic reviews of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) interventions, presenting difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and patients alike. It is not known whether heterogeneity arises from differences in patient populations or relates to methodological rigor. This overview aimed to collate and compare findings from systematic reviews of ONSs compared with routine care in adult patients who were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition with any clinical condition and to examine their methodological quality. Three electronic databases were searched to July 2019, supplemented with hand-searching. Data on all outcomes were extracted and review methodological quality assessed using A MeaSurement Tool for Assessment of systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Twenty-two reviews were included, 11 in groups from mixed clinical backgrounds and 11 in specific clinical conditions. Ninety-one meta-analyses were identified for 12 different outcomes but there was discordance between results. Significant benefits of ONSs were reported in 4 of 4 analyses of energy intake, 7 of 11 analyses of body weight, 7 of 22 analyses of mortality, 10 of 17 analyses of complications (total and infectious), 1 of 3 analyses of muscle strength, 4 of 9 analyses of body composition/nutritional status, 2 of 14 analyses of length of stay, and 2 of 5 analyses of hospital readmissions. Ten reviews were high quality (AMSTAR scores 8–11), 9 moderate (AMSTAR scores 3–8), and 3 poor (AMSTAR scores 0–3). Methodological deficiencies were limitations to searches, poor reporting of heterogeneity, and failure to incorporate quality of evidence into any recommendations. Discordance between reviews was not markedly reduced when only high-quality reviews were considered. Evidence for the effects of ONS in malnourished patients or those who are at risk of malnutrition is uncertain, and discordance in results can arise from differences in clinical background of patients or the etiological basis of malnutrition.

Quality of design and reporting of animal research in peritoneal dialysis: A scoping review

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 394-404
Author(s):  
Janusz Witowski ◽  
Dorota Sikorska ◽  
András Rudolf ◽  
Izabela Miechowicz ◽  
Julian Kamhieh-Milz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Size Estimation ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Impact

The concerns about reproducibility and validity of animal studies are partly related to poor experimental design and reporting. Here, we undertook a scoping review of the literature to determine the extent and quality of reporting of animal studies on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Online databases were searched to identify 567 relevant original articles published between 1979 and 2018. These were analyzed with respect to bibliographic parameters and general aspects of animal experimentation. A subgroup of 120 studies was analyzed in detail in terms of the impact on the reporting quality of the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for animal studies. The number of animal studies on PD increased continuously over the years with a thematic shift toward long-term preservation of the peritoneum as a dialyzing organ. There were significant deficiencies in research design with the lack of sample size estimation, randomization, and blinding being the commonest shortcomings. The description of animal numbers, housing conditions, use of medication, and statistical analysis was incomplete. The introduction in 2010 of the ARRIVE guidelines produced very little improvement in the completeness of reporting regardless of journal impact factor. The animal studies on PD suffer from deficits in experimental protocols and transparent reporting. These drawbacks need to be corrected to ensure high-quality and much-needed animal research in PD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document