The quality of medical record review studies in the international emergency medicine literature
The quality of medical record review studies in the international emergency medicine literature
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.11.011
复制
发表时间：
2005-04-01
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
Reade, T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Badcock, D;Kelly, AM;Reade, T
研究目的：评价4种国际急诊医学期刊病历回顾研究的方法学质量。方法：对2002年1月至2004年5月发表在《急诊学术期刊》(AEM)、《急诊医学年鉴》(Annals)、《急诊医学杂志》(EMJ)和《澳大利亚急诊医学》(EMA)上的文章进行观察性研究。对符合条件的文章进行审查，包括报告明确的假设或目标、培训摘要者、界定纳入和排除标准、使用标准摘要形式、重要变量的定义、摘要者表现的监测、摘要者研究假设的盲目性、报告评价者间的可靠性、样本量或权力计算、道德规范批准或豁免的报告、以及资金来源的披露。主要结果是符合每个标准的文章的比例。结果：107篇论文被分析，其中31篇发表在AEM，29篇发表在Annals，29篇发表在EMJ，18篇发表在EMA。93%的论文有明确的目的，51%的论文有标准化的摘要形式，25%的评价者之间有可信度，68%的文章有伦理批准或放弃，10%的文章有样本量或权力计算。结论：病案评审对质量标准的遵守程度不佳，不同期刊在总体方法质量上存在显著差异。
Study objective: We assess the methodologic quality of studies using medical record review methodology in 4 international emergency medicine journals. A secondary aim was to compare methodology quality among these journals and across years.Methods: This was an observational study of articles whose main methodology was medical record review published in Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), Annals of Emergency Medicine (Annals), Emergency Medicine Journal (EMJ), and Emergency Medicine Australasia (EMA) between January 2002 and May 2004. Eligible articles were reviewed for reporting of a clear hypothesis or objective, training of abstractors, defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, use of a standard abstraction form, definition of important variables, monitoring of abstractor performance, blinding of abstractors to study hypothesis, reporting of interrater reliability, sample size or power calculation, reporting of ethics approval or waiver, and disclosure of funding source. The primary outcome was the proportion of articles meeting each criterion. Secondary outcomes were comparison of the proportions of articles meeting each criterion among journals and by years.Results: One hundred seven articles were analyzed; 31 were published in AEM, 29 in Annals, 29 in EMJ, and 18 in EMA. A clear aim was reported in 93% of articles, standardized abstraction forms were reported in 51%, interrater reliability was reported in 25%, ethics approval or waiver was reported in 68%, and sample size or power calculation was reported in 10%.Conclusion: Adherence to the quality criteria for medical record reviews was suboptimal, and there were significant differences among journals in overall methodologic quality.