Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports : A methodological systematic review
Superchi, Cecilia (Sorbonne Paris Cité)
González, José Antonio (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya)
Solà, Ivan ![Identificador ORCID](/img/uab/orcid.ico)
(Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau)
Cobo, Erik (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya)
Hren, Darko (University of Split)
Boutron, Isabelle (Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu)
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Fecha: |
2019 |
Resumen: |
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. 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. 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). 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. |
Derechos: |
Aquest document està subjecte a una llicència d'ús Creative Commons. Es permet la reproducció total o parcial, la distribució, la comunicació pública de l'obra i la creació d'obres derivades, fins i tot amb finalitats comercials, sempre i quan es reconegui l'autoria de l'obra original. ![Creative Commons](/img/licenses/by.ico) |
Lengua: |
Anglès |
Documento: |
Article ; recerca ; Versió publicada |
Materia: |
Methods ;
Peer review ;
Quality control ;
Report ;
Systematic review |
Publicado en: |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 19 Núm. 1 (june 2019) , p. 48, ISSN 1471-2288 |
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x
PMID: 30841850
El registro aparece en las colecciones:
Documentos de investigación >
Documentos de los grupos de investigación de la UAB >
Centros y grupos de investigación (producción científica) >
Ciencias de la salud y biociencias >
Institut de Recerca Sant PauArtículos >
Artículos de investigaciónArtículos >
Artículos publicados
Registro creado el 2023-12-19, última modificación el 2024-04-08