ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Critical appraisal aids in assessing the quality of scientific literature, which is central to the practice of evidence-based medicine. Several tools and guidelines are available for critiquing and assessing the quality of specific study types. However, limited guidance exists for critical appraisal of clinical pharmacokinetic studies. AIM: We aimed to achieve experts' consensus regarding the quality markers for clinical pharmacokinetic studies in an attempt to develop a critical appraisal tool. METHOD: Quality markers related to clinical pharmacokinetic studies, were derived from the published literature and categorized according to manuscript reporting domains (abstract, introduction/background, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion). Questions that aid in appraising pharmacokinetic studies were formulated from these quality markers. Experts were involved in a modified Delphi process to achieve a consensus regarding the formulated questions. The proposed tool was pilot tested on 30 recently published clinical pharmacokinetic studies. Inter-observer agreement was measured to determine the reliability of the included items. RESULTS: Twenty-five experts consented to participate. Three rounds of a modified Delphi survey were required to generate a consensus for a 21-item tool aimed at appraising the quality of clinical pharmacokinetic studies. When applied to 30 recently published clinical pharmacokinetic studies, most items scored fair to moderate levels of agreement (61.90-95.24%). CONCLUSION: The clinical pharmacokinetic critical appraisal tool (CACPK) developed in this study consisted of 21 items aimed at helping an end-user to determine the quality of a pharmacokinetic study. Further studies are warranted to reaffirm the validity and reliability of the CACPK tool.
Subject(s)
Evidence-Based Medicine , Research Design , Consensus , Delphi Technique , Humans , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Robust critical appraisal tools for clinical pharmacokinetic studies are limited. Before development of such a tool is possible, quality markers (items deemed important for credibility of study results) must be identified. We aim to create an inventory of quality markers intended for the appraisal of clinical pharmacokinetic studies and to categorize identified markers into associated domains of study quality. METHODS: Medline via ProQuest central (1946-Sep 2020, EMBASE (1974-Sep 2020), Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Google and Google Scholar were searched using the following search categories: pharmacokinetics, reporting guidelines and quality markers. Reference lists of the identified articles were searched manually. Any article (review, study or guideline) reporting quality markers related to the appraisal of pharmacokinetic literature was eligible for inclusion. Articles were further screened and limited to those reported in English on human subjects only. Cell-based and animal-based pharmacokinetic studies were excluded. Extracted data from included articles included identified or perceived markers of quality and baseline article data. Identified quality markers were then categorized according to manuscript reporting domains (abstract, introduction/background, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 789 studies identified, 17 articles were included for extraction of quality markers. A total of 35 quality markers were identified across eight categories. The most frequently reported quality markers were related to method (13/35) and result sections (6/35). Quality markers encompassed all aspects of study design and reporting and were both similar and different to established reporting checklists for clinical pharmacokinetic studies. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The inventory of quality markers is now suitable to undergo further testing for inclusion in a tool designed for the appraisal of clinical pharmacokinetic studies.
