Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15787085

Evaluating quantitative research reports.

Abstract

As a novice reviewer, it is often difficult to trust your evaluation of a research report. You may feel uncertain in your interpretations. These are common concerns and can be remedied by reading and discussing research reports on research listservs, through journal clubs, or with other nephrology nurses. Practice using the criteria for research report evaluation and you too can perfect critiquing a research report!

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Cynthia L Russell. Evaluating quantitative research reports.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15787085/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Complex adaptive systems: a response to Luchins.

Luchins (2003, Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 31(2), 183-186) distinguishes the mutual strengths and shortcomings of qualitative and quantitative approaches as applied to the complexities of evaluation psychiatric hospital functioning in particular, and behavioral healthcare practice in general. This brief response offers an examination of the complex interplay of factors within non-linear models in a conceptualization of complex adaptive systems for understanding causal factors in mental health administration as well as calling into question the myth of the relationship between measurement and hence control and understanding and prediction.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

Quality of life in chronic pancreatitis.

In an era such as the present one in which there is a high demand for health services with the associated pressure of controlling spending, health care organizations are concerned about the cost-effectiveness of quality improvement interventions. On the other hand, the impact of the disease and the treatment on the patient's overall well-being and functioning has become a topic of growing interest not only in clinical research but also in practice. The clinical evaluation of the benefits of specific treatments for chronic, debilitating and incurable diseases should increasingly include formal assessment of patient activity and well-being. Thus, health-related quality of life as subjectively perceived by the patient, is becoming a major issue in the evaluation of any therapeutic intervention, mainly in patients with chronic or difficult diseases where the aim of the intervention is to keep patients either symptom-free and capable of living in the community for a long time or to reduce the discomfort caused by the disease. In this paper, we review the current knowledge on the quality of life assessment in chronic pancreatitis patients.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

A system for rating the stability and strength of medical evidence.

BACKGROUND: Methods for describing one's confidence in the available evidence are useful for end-users of evidence reviews. Analysts inevitably make judgments about the quality, quantity consistency, robustness, and magnitude of effects observed in the studies identified. The subjectivity of these judgments in several areas underscores the need for transparency in judgments. DISCUSSION: This paper introduces a new system for rating medical evidence. The system requires explicit judgments and provides explicit rules for balancing these judgments. Unlike other systems for rating the strength of evidence, our system draws a distinction between two types of conclusions: quantitative and qualitative. A quantitative conclusion addresses the question, "How well does it work?", whereas a qualitative conclusion addresses the question, "Does it work?" In our system, quantitative conclusions are tied to stability ratings, and qualitative conclusions are tied to strength ratings. Our system emphasizes extensive a priori criteria for judgments to reduce the potential for bias. Further, the system makes explicit the impact of heterogeneity testing, meta-analysis, and sensitivity analyses on evidence ratings. This article provides details of our system, including graphical depictions of how the numerous judgments that an analyst makes can be combined. We also describe two worked examples of how the system can be applied to both interventional and diagnostic technologies. SUMMARY: Although explicit judgments and formal combination rules are two important steps on the path to a comprehensive system for rating medical evidence, many additional steps must also be taken. Foremost among these are the distinction between quantitative and qualitative conclusions, an extensive set of a priori criteria for making judgments, and the direct impact of analytic results on evidence ratings. These attributes form the basis for a logically consistent system that can improve the usefulness of evidence reviews.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗