We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To use the validated Online Quality Assessment Tool (OQAT) to assess the quality of online nutrition information.
Setting:
The social networking platform formerly known as Twitter (now X).
Design:
Utilising the Twitter search application programming interface (API; v1.1), all tweets that included the word ‘nutrition’, along with associated metadata, were collected on seven randomly selected days in 2021. Tweets were screened, those without a URL were removed and the remainder grouped on retweet status. Articles (shared via URL) were assessed using the OQAT, and quality levels assigned (low, satisfactory, high). Mean differences of retweeted and non-retweeted data were assessed by Mann-Whitney U test. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to compare information quality by source.
Results:
In total, 10,573 URLs were collected from 18,230 tweets. After screening for relevance, 1,005 articles were assessed (9,568 were out of scope) sourced from: professional-blogs (n=354), news-outlets (n=213), companies (n=166), personal-blogs (n=120), NGOs (n=60), magazines (n=55), universities (n=19), government (n=18). Rasch measures indicated the quality levels; 0-3.48, poor, 3.49-6.3, satisfactory and, 6.4-10, high quality. Personal and company-authored blogs were more likely to rank as poor quality. There was a significant difference in quality of retweeted (n=267, sum of rank, 461.6) and non-retweeted articles (n=738, sum of rank, 518.0), U = 87475, p=0.006, but no significant effect of information source on quality.
Conclusions:
Lower-quality nutrition articles were more likely to be retweeted. Caution is required when using or sharing articles, particularly from companies and personal blogs, which tended to be lower-quality sources of nutritional information.
Scientists have started to explore whether novel artificial intelligence (AI) tools based on large language models, such as GPT-4, could support the scientific peer review process. We sought to understand (i) whether AI versus human reviewers are able to distinguish between made-up AI-generated and human-written conference abstracts reporting on actual research, and (ii) how the quality assessments by AI versus human reviewers of the reported research correspond to each other. We conducted a large-scale field experiment during a medium-sized scientific conference, relying on 305 human-written and 20 AI-written abstracts that were reviewed either by AI or 217 human reviewers. The results show that human reviewers and GPTZero were better in discerning (AI vs. human) authorship than GPT-4. Regarding quality assessments, there was rather low agreement between both human–human and human–AI reviewer pairs, but AI reviewers were more aligned with human reviewers in classifying the very best abstracts. This indicates that AI could become a prescreening tool for scientific abstracts. The results are discussed with regard to the future development and use of AI tools during the scientific peer review process.
For reasons of human health and sustainability, there is a growing interest in the potential of integrated nature-based interventions in healthcare. However, it is not clear which quality criteria underlie these interventions. Here, we develop a study protocol for a scoping review to explore potential quality criteria relating to the design, implementation and evaluation of nature-based interventions in healthcare institutions. The literature search will be conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus, focusing on studies published in English between January 2005 and April 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews with extension for scoping reviews will be used. Search terms were developed stepwise and in consultation with the interdisciplinary research team and the project steering group. Two researchers will perform the screening of the papers independently. Using descriptive content analysis, identified quality criteria will be classified according to the applied theoretical frameworks, outcomes, levels (institutional, professional and patient) and the domains of biodiversity, human health or intervention processes. Ultimately, this descriptive work will result in a set of quality indicators and a prototype nature-based intervention quality assessment framework, which will be presented to the project steering group and multi-stakeholder assembly for further refinement.
Taking an empirical approach, this chapter demonstrates how terribly complex it is to conceive of a ‘successful’ investment migration programme. I walk the reader through the menu of investment migration programme design options, exposing the difficulties related to pretty much all of the available choices to help us grasp the sheer complexity of the issue.
In 2018, a study was conducted in the Eastern and South-eastern Europe and Central Asia. National leaders of palliative care were asked to describe developments in postgraduate education in their region. They were asked whether the introduction of a European curriculum would be useful in their country. The aim was to explore the structures of postgraduate education at country level in order to define the barriers and opportunities.
Methods
This is an ethnographic study based on semi-structured field interviews. A thematic analysis was chosen for data extraction and a narrative synthesis for the systematic presentation and critical discussion of the results.
Results
Thirty-two interviews were recorded in 23 countries. The analysis revealed 4 main themes: (1) general barriers to access, (2) necessary to improve palliative care education, (3) palliative care core curriculum – the theoretical framework, and (4) challenges in implementation. These main themes were complemented by 19 subthemes.
Significance of results
Palliative care is understood as a universal idea, which in practice means accepting social pluralism and learning to respect unique individual needs. This makes teaching palliative care a very special task because there are no golden standards for dealing with each individual as they are. In theory, a European curriculum recommendation is useful to convince governments and other key stakeholders of the importance of postgraduate education. In practice, such a curriculum needs to be adapted to the constraints of health services and human resources. Validated quality assessment criteria for palliative care education are crucial to advance postgraduate education.
There has been quite a considerable amount of debate over the last decade about the importance of quality assessment in the field of LTC provision in Portugal, framed by the discourse on social investment. In a context of limited resources, care providers are pressured to demonstrate creation of value. Quality assessment becomes one of the paths to demonstrate worthiness. This, however, has not translated into standardised protocols of evaluation of impacts and quality in particular. The question has been asked why is that? In this article we contribute to answering this question by looking at the discourses of stakeholders on the topic of social investment and quality in LTC. Overall there is a discourse that acknowledges the importance of assessing investments and quality as a reliable proxy to measure return on investments, although there is a general difficulty in translating social investment and the quest for quality into specific examples and tools.
To implement effective stewardship in food animal production, it is essential that producers and veterinarians are aware of preventive interventions to reduce illness in livestock. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) provide transparent, replicable, and quality-assessed overviews. At present, it is unknown how many SR/MA evaluate preventive antibiotic use or management practices aimed at reducing disease risk in animal agriculture. Further, the quality of existing reviews is unknown. Our aim was to identify reviews investigating these topics and to provide an assessment of their quality. Thirty-eight relevant reviews were identified. Quality assessment was based on the AMSTAR 2 framework for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews. The quality of most of the reviews captured was classified as critically low (84.2%, n = 32/38), and only a small percentage of the evaluated reviews did not contain critical weaknesses (7.9%, n = 3/38). Particularly, a small number of reviews reported the development of an a priori protocol (15.8%, n = 6/38), and few reviews stated that key review steps were conducted in duplicate (study selection/screening: 26.3%, n = 10/38; data extraction: 15.8%, n = 6/38). The development of high-quality reviews summarizing evidence on approaches to antibiotic reduction is essential, and thus greater adherence to quality conduct guidelines for synthesis research is crucial.
Introduction: Depending on the time and day of initial Emergency Department (ED) presentation, some patients may require a return to the ED the following day for ultrasound examination. Return visits for ultrasound may be time and resource intensive for both patients and the ED. Qualitative experience suggests that a percentage of return ultrasounds could be performed at a non-ED facility. Our objective was to undertake a retrospective audit of return for ultrasound usage, patterns and outcomes at 2 academic EDs. Methods: A retrospective review of all adult patients returning to the ED for ultrasound at both LHSC ED sites in 2016 was undertaken. Each chart was independently reviewed by two emergency medicine consultants. Charts were assessed for day and time of initial presentation and return, type of ultrasound ordered, and length of ED stay on initial presentation and return visit. Opinion based questions were considered by reviewers, including urgency of diagnosis clarification required, if symptoms were still present on return, and if any medical or surgical treatment or follow up was arranged based on ultrasound results. Agreement between reviewers was assessed. Results: After eliminating charts for which the return visit was not for a scheduled ultrasound examination, 328 patient charts were reviewed. 63% of patients were female and median [IQR] age was 40 years [27-56]. Abdomen/pelvis represented 50% of the ultrasounds; renal 24%; venous Doppler 15.9%. Symptoms were still present and documented in 79% of cases. 22% of cases required a medical intervention and 9% an immediate surgical intervention. 11% of patients were admitted to hospital on their return visit. Outpatient follow-up based on US results was initiated in 29% of cases. Median [IQR] combined LOS was 479.5 minutes [358.5-621.75]. Agreement between reviewers for opinion based questions was poor (63%-96%). Conclusion: Ideally, formal ultrasound should be available on a 24 hour basis for ED patients in order to avoid return visits. A percentage of return for ultrasound examinations do not result in any significant change in treatment. Emergency departments should consider the development of pathways to avoid return visits for follow up ultrasound when possible. The low incidence of surgical treatment in those returning for US suggests that this population could be served in a non-hospital setting. Further research is required to support this conclusion.
Cardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery.
Methods
A literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies.
Results
A total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items “characterizing heterogeneity,” “assumptions,” and “choice of model.”
Conclusions
The present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.
Recent trends in multimedia technologies indicate the need for richer imaging modalities to increase user engagement with the content. Among other alternatives, point clouds denote a viable solution that offers an immersive content representation, as witnessed by current activities in JPEG and MPEG standardization committees. As a result of such efforts, MPEG is at the final stages of drafting an emerging standard for point cloud compression, which we consider as the state-of-the-art. In this study, the entire set of encoders that have been developed in the MPEG committee are assessed through an extensive and rigorous analysis of quality. We initially focus on the assessment of encoding configurations that have been defined by experts in MPEG for their core experiments. Then, two additional experiments are designed and carried to address some of the identified limitations of current approach. As part of the study, state-of-the-art objective quality metrics are benchmarked to assess their capability to predict visual quality of point clouds under a wide range of radically different compression artifacts. To carry the subjective evaluation experiments, a web-based renderer is developed and described. The subjective and objective quality scores along with the rendering software are made publicly available, to facilitate and promote research on the field.
While carrying out a scoping review of earthquake response, we found that there is no universal standardized approach for assessing the quality of disaster evidence, much of which is variable or not peer reviewed. With the lack of a framework to ascertain the value and validity of this literature, there is a danger that valuable insights may be lost. We propose a theoretical framework that may, with further validation, address this gap.
Methods
Existing frameworks – quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUORUM), meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE), the Cochrane assessment of bias, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists, strengthening the reporting of observation studies in epidemiology (STROBE), and consensus guidelines on reports of field interventions in disasters and emergencies (CONFIDE)–were analyzed to identify key domains of quality. Supporting statements, based on these existing frameworks were developed for each domain to form an overall theoretical framework of quality. This was piloted on a data set of publications from a separate scoping review.
Results
Four domains of quality were identified: robustness, generalizability, added value, and ethics with 11 scored, supporting statements. Although 73 out of 111 papers (66%) scored below 70%, a sizeable portion (34%) scored higher.
Conclusion
Our theoretical framework presents, for debate and further validation, a method of assessing the quality of non-traditional studies and thus supporting the best available evidence approach to disaster response. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:147–151)
Guideline methods to develop recommendations dedicate most effort around organising discovery and corroboration knowledge following the evidence-based medicine (EBM) framework. Guidelines typically use a single dimension of information, and generally discard contextual evidence and formal expert knowledge and consumer's experiences in the process. In recognition of the limitations of guidelines in complex cases, complex interventions and systems research, there has been significant effort to develop new tools, guides, resources and structures to use alongside EBM methods of guideline development. In addition to these advances, a new framework based on the philosophy of science is required. Guidelines should be defined as implementation decision support tools for improving the decision-making process in real-world practice and not only as a procedure to optimise the knowledge base of scientific discovery and corroboration. A shift from the model of the EBM pyramid of corroboration of evidence to the use of broader multi-domain perspective graphically depicted as ‘Greek temple’ could be considered. This model takes into account the different stages of scientific knowledge (discovery, corroboration and implementation), the sources of knowledge relevant to guideline development (experimental, observational, contextual, expert-based and experiential); their underlying inference mechanisms (deduction, induction, abduction, means-end inferences) and a more precise definition of evidence and related terms. The applicability of this broader approach is presented for the development of the Canadian Consensus Guidelines for the Primary Care of People with Developmental Disabilities.
Objectives: Although consideration of ethical issues is recognized as a crucial part of health technology assessment, ethics analysis for HTA is generally perceived as methodologically underdeveloped in comparison to other HTA domains. The aim of our study is (i) to verify existing tools for quality assessment of ethics analyses for HTA, (ii) to consider some arguments for and against the need for quality assessment tools for ethics analyses for HTA, and (iii) to propose a preliminary set of criteria that could be used for assessing the quality of ethics analyses for HTA.
Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature, reviewed HTA organizations’ Web sites, and solicited views from thirty-two experts in the field of ethics for HTA.
Results: The database and HTA agency Web site searches yielded 420 references (413 from databases, seven from HTA Web sites). No formal instruments for assessing the quality of ethics analyses for HTA purposes were identified. Thirty-two experts in the field of ethics for HTA from ten countries, who were brought together at two workshops held in Edmonton (Canada) and Cologne (Germany) confirmed the findings from the literature.
Conclusions: Generating a quality assessment tool for ethics analyses in HTA would confer considerable benefits, including methodological alignment with other areas of HTA, increase in transparency and transferability of ethics analyses, and provision of common language between the various participants in the HTA process. We propose key characteristics of quality assessment tools for this purpose, which can be applied to ethics analyses for HTA purposes.
Introduction / Innovation Concept: In 2008, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education endorsed a change such that EM residency programs can decrease their synchronous conference experiences by up to 20% in exchange for asynchronous learning - Individualized Interactive Instruction (III). Identifying quality online resources that would also fulfill III’s reporting criteria (program director monitoring, evaluation component, faculty oversight, program effectiveness) is challenging. Using crowdsourced expertise, the Approved Instructional Resources (AIR) series from Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) was created in 2014 to provide a credible method to identify quality educational blogs and podcasts. The identified resources, however, focused on basic content with limited utility for more senior residents. We thus created the AIR-Pro series in 2015, aimed to cover more advanced concepts. Methods: The AIR-Pro series is a continuously building curriculum covering a new subject area every 2 months. For each area, 6 EM Chief Residents identify 3-5 advanced clinical questions. Using FOAMsearch.net to search blogs and podcasts, relevant posts are scored by 8 reviewers from the AIR-Pro Board (faculty and chief residents at various institutions). The scoring instrument contains 5 measurement outcomes (7-point Likert scale): recency, accuracy, educational utility, evidence based, and references. The AIR-Pro Approved label is given to posts with a score of ≥28 (out of 35) points and these are featured in the blog posting. For scores of 26-27, an Honorable Mention label is given if Board members collectively felt that they were valuable. For each AIR-Pro subject area, a multiple choice quiz is written based on the featured posts. Educator dashboard access of the Google Drive quizzes is given to program directors for monitoring. If approved by their program director, EM residents receive official III credit upon completion of each quiz. Curriculum, Tool, or Material: As of Jan 1, 2016, there have been 2 modules published on ALiEM with 1,220 (Cardiovascular) and 1,059 (Trauma) pageviews worldwide. Although early in development, 21 different institutions are using the AIR-Pro Series with over 150 residents completed the cardiovascular and trauma quizzes. We anticipate more because the original AIR Series has over 73 programs using it for III credit. Conclusion: The AIR-Pro series is a novel, objective, crowdsourced approach towards identifying quality, educational, social media content for the advanced EM resident.
Biodynamic (BD) agriculture became the subject of research efforts during the past decades, whereas a part of the scientific community looks at the BD method with skepticism and marks it as dogmatic. Nevertheless, as explored in this review, a fair share of the available peer-reviewed research results of controlled field experiments as well as case studies show effects of BD preparations on yield, soil quality and biodiversity. Moreover, BD preparations express a positive environmental impact in terms of energy use and efficiency. However, the underlying natural science mechanistic principle of BD preparations is still under investigation. In addition, quality determination methods, based on holistic approaches, are increasingly being investigated and recognized. BD farming strives, as manifested in several publications, to positively impact cultural landscape design as well. Summarized data showed that further research is needed and thus encouraged in the field of food quality comparison/determination, food safety, environmental performance (e.g., footprints), and on the effects of BD farming practices on farm animals.
This chapter focuses on the critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials of treatment or preventive interventions and the presentation of study details from these in systematic reviews. Critical appraisal of study reports for systematic reviews is generally a two-stage process. Firstly there is "study selection" where potentially eligible studies are checked to see if they meet the pre-specified inclusion criteria of the review. Then there is "quality assessment" of and data collection from the studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The format and content of text and tables presenting the details of studies included in literature reviews and other work depend on the aims, destination and readership of the intended report. The critical appraisal of studies and the succinct presentation of study details are essential components of evidence-based anaesthesia. Both assist the interpretation of the evidence from studies in terms of its validity and, if valid, its applicability.
Objective: We studied the influence of the methodologic quality of individual trials on the outcome of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. From each study we extracted the number of patients in both groups who died in hospital or during follow-up. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Delphi list. We first recalculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), on the studies found and compared them with the original results of Yusuf et al. Next we incorporated the results of quality assessment in five different ways in the calculation of the pooled ORs: a) component analysis; b) visual plot; c) quality score as a threshold score; d) quality score as a weighting factor; and e) cumulative pooling.
Results and Conclusion: No correlation between quality scores and ORs was found. Studies with a proper description of the different quality components provided an estimate close to the true treatment effect. No major differences were found between the results of the five different methods of incorporating the quality scores into the final conclusion.
On the basis of investigations with samples from a fertilization trial started in 1980, some parameters of food storage ability are evaluated. Microbial infestation of the product during incubation seems to be the most reliable parameter, but the circumstances of infestation and the optimal test conditions are unknown. There are no reliable correlations among the results of degradation tests, storage tests under optimal conditions, and chemical contents of the product. The concept of product vitality (a product-oriented quality referring to a product full of vigor) is based on results of degradation tests. Ultimately, however, food quality standards are based on human priorities (human-oriented). Therefore, not only product characteristics, but also social, psychological, and environmental criteria should be considered.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.