dc.contributor |
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Departament d'Estadística i Investigació Operativa |
dc.contributor |
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. GNOM - Grup d'Optimització Numèrica i Modelització |
dc.contributor |
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. GRBIO - Grup de Recerca en Bioestadística i Bioinformàtica |
dc.contributor.author |
Superchi, Cecilia |
dc.contributor.author |
González Alastrué, José Antonio |
dc.contributor.author |
Solà, Ivan |
dc.contributor.author |
Cobo Valeri, Erik |
dc.contributor.author |
Hren, Darko |
dc.contributor.author |
Boutron, Isabelle |
dc.date |
2019-03-06 |
dc.identifier.citation |
Superchi, C. [et al.]. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review. "BMC medical research methodology", 6 Març 2019, vol. 19, núm. 48, p. 1-14. |
dc.identifier.citation |
1471-2288 |
dc.identifier.citation |
10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2117/130297 |
dc.language.iso |
eng |
dc.relation |
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x |
dc.rights |
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Spain |
dc.rights |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
dc.rights |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/ |
dc.subject |
Àrees temàtiques de la UPC::Economia i organització d'empreses |
dc.subject |
Research--Evaluation |
dc.subject |
Biomedical engineering--Research--Evaluation |
dc.subject |
Quality control |
dc.subject |
methods |
dc.subject |
report |
dc.subject |
systematic review |
dc.subject |
Investigació -- Avaluació |
dc.subject |
Enginyeria biomèdica -- Investigació -- Avaluació |
dc.title |
Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review |
dc.type |
info:eu-repo/semantics/submittedVersion |
dc.type |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.description.abstract |
Background
A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.
Methods
We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis.
Results
We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of ‘quality’. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer’s comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18).
Conclusion
Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. |
dc.description.abstract |
Peer Reviewed |