The Development of a Checklist to Enhance Methodological Quality in Intervention Programs.

The methodological quality of primary studies is an important issue when performing meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Nevertheless, there are no clear criteria for how methodological quality should be analyzed. Controversies emerge when considering the various theoretical and empirical definitions, especially in relation to three interrelated problems: the lack of representativeness, utility, and feasibility. In this article, we (a) systematize and summarize the available literature about methodological quality in primary studies; (b) propose a specific, parsimonious, 12-items checklist to empirically define the methodological quality of primary studies based on a content validity study; and (c) present an inter-coder reliability study for the resulting 12-items. This paper provides a precise and rigorous description of the development of this checklist, highlighting the clearly specified criteria for the inclusion of items and a substantial inter-coder agreement in the different items. Rather than simply proposing another checklist, however, it then argues that the list constitutes an assessment tool with respect to the representativeness, utility, and feasibility of the most frequent methodological quality items in the literature, one that provides practitioners and researchers with clear criteria for choosing items that may be adequate to their needs. We propose individual methodological features as indicators of quality, arguing that these need to be taken into account when designing, implementing, or evaluating an intervention program. This enhances methodological quality of intervention programs and fosters the cumulative knowledge based on meta-analyses of these interventions. Future development of the checklist is discussed.

Guidelines for Integration of Systematic Reviews using Primary Studies

Objectives Due to the growing number of systematic reviews published and the need to update the existing revisions, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) ­ Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) published in 2008 a preliminary guide to integrate primary data education to data from systematic reviews already published. This study is a translation effort of the American agency's guidelines to provide subsidies for revisions in our midst. Methods A study group with experts in systematic review was gathered to identify any methodological requirements that need clarification and guidance to revision developers that used existing reviews. In addition, they identified and consulted experienced researchers to provide guidance on conducting systematic reviews: Key informants (KI). Results No evidence was found in the literature for the driving advice based on the integration of existing systematic reviews and primary assays. Recommendations were based on expert opinion. Conclusion The literature lacks guidelines for integration of systematic reviews and primary studies.

Objetivos Devido ao crescimento do número de revisões sistemáticas publicadas e a necessidade de atualização das revisões existentes, a Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) ­ Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) ­ publicou em 2008 um guia preliminar para integrar os dados dos estudos primários aos dados das revisões sistemáticas já publicadas, no desenvolvimento de novas revisões sistemáticas. Este estudo é um esforço de tradução das orientações da agência americana, com o intuito de fornecer subsídios para as revisões em nosso meio. Métodos Um grupo de estudos com especialistas em revisão sistemática foi reunido para identificar as eventuais necessidades metodológicas que precisariam de esclarecimento e orientação para elaboradores de revisões que utilizassem revisões existentes. Adicionalmente, foram identificados e consultados pesquisadores experientes que fornecessem orientações sobre a realização de revisões sistemáticas: informantes-chave (IC). Resultados Não foram encontradas evidências na literatura para basear recomendações na condução da integração de ensaios primários às revisões sistemáticas existentes. As recomendações foram baseadas em opiniões de especialistas. Conclusão A literatura carece de orientações para integração de estudos primários às revisões sistemáticas.