Appraising the Quality of Medical Education Research Methods: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education
Appraising the Quality of Medical Education Research Methods: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/acm.0000000000000786
复制
发表时间：
2015-08-01
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Reed, Darcy A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cook, David A.;Reed, Darcy A.
目的编制医学教育研究质量量表（MERSQI）和Newcastle-Ottawa量表-教育（NOS-E），用于评价医学教育研究的方法学质量。该研究的目的是评估这两种工具的评分者间的可靠性，规范性评分，和仪器之间的相关性。MethodIn 2014年，作者使用MERSQI或NOS-E检索PubMed和谷歌的文章。他们使用组内相关系数（ICC）和标准分数获得或提取了评估者间可靠性的数据。他们使用斯皮尔曼rho.ResultsEach工具包含有关采样，控制混杂因素，结果的完整性的项目计算尺度间的相关性。总体评分的评分者间可靠性范围为0.68至0.95。两种工具上几乎所有领域特定项目的评分者间可靠性都很高或更高（ICC > 0.60）。大多数情况下，低评分者间的可靠性与范围的限制，和原始协议通常是好的。在评估已发表研究的26项研究中，MERSQI评分的中位数为11.3（范围为8.9-15.1，可能为18）。在6项研究中，中位总体NOS-E评分为3.22（范围为2.08-3.82，共6项）。总体MERSQI和NOS-E分数相关合理以及（rho 0.49-0.72）。结论MERSQI和NOS-E是有用的，可靠的，互补的工具，用于评估医学教育研究的方法质量。解释和使用他们的分数应侧重于项目的具体代码，而不是总分数。规范性分数应该用于相对而不是绝对的判断，因为不同的研究问题需要不同的研究设计。
PurposeThe Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E) were developed to appraise methodological quality in medical education research. The study objective was to evaluate the interrater reliability, normative scores, and between-instrument correlation for these two instruments.MethodIn 2014, the authors searched PubMed and Google for articles using the MERSQI or NOS-E. They obtained or extracted data for interrater reliabilityusing the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)and normative scores. They calculated between-scale correlation using Spearman rho.ResultsEach instrument contains items concerning sampling, controlling for confounders, and integrity of outcomes. Interrater reliability for overall scores ranged from 0.68 to 0.95. Interrater reliability was substantial or better (ICC > 0.60) for nearly all domain-specific items on both instruments. Most instances of low interrater reliability were associated with restriction of range, and raw agreement was usually good. Across 26 studies evaluating published research, the median overall MERSQI score was 11.3 (range 8.9-15.1, of possible 18). Across six studies, the median overall NOS-E score was 3.22 (range 2.08-3.82, of possible 6). Overall MERSQI and NOS-E scores correlated reasonably well (rho 0.49-0.72).ConclusionsThe MERSQI and NOS-E are useful, reliable, complementary tools for appraising methodological quality of medical education research. Interpretation and use of their scores should focus on item-specific codes rather than overall scores. Normative scores should be used for relative rather than absolute judgments because different research questions require different study designs.