Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science

Korean society of Biological Nursing Science (한국기초간호학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quality Assessment Tools and Reporting Standards in Nursing Research

간호연구 질 평가 도구 및 보고지침 고찰

  • 김경희 (중앙대학교 간호대학) ;
  • 김주현 (강원대학교 의과대학 간호학과) ;
  • 임경춘 (성신여자대학교 간호대학) ;
  • 이경숙 (강릉원주대학교 원주캠퍼스 간호학과) ;
  • 정재심 (울산대학교 임상대학원) ;
  • 최명애 (서울대학교 간호대학) ;
  • 채영란 (강원대학교 의과대학 간호학과)
  • Received : 2012.11.05
  • Accepted : 2012.11.19
  • Published : 2012.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Quality of nursing research should be evaluated before it is applied as an evidence for evidence-based nursing practice. This study attempted to analyze and to compare tools for the quality assessment and reporting standards of nursing research using CONSORT and STROBE checklist by types of research design. Methods: We searched the tools for quality assessment in nursing research based on the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) publication. Then, we analysed and compared the tools for quality evaluation by types of research design. Results: According to the analysis using CONSORT checklist, ROB shows coherence in 17 items, Jadad shows coherence in 3 items, SIGN (for RCT) shows coherence in 26 items, and Downs & Black shows coherence in 24 items. According to the analysis using STROBE checklist, MINORS shows coherence in 25 items, NOS shows coherence in 21 items, SIGN (for Cohort studies & Case-control studies) shows coherence in 29 items, and RoBANS shows coherence in 21 items. Conclusion: Based on our analysis, we recommend that nursing researchers should report according to the reporting standards of tools for quality evaluation. We hope that our analysis can be helpful to develop evidence-based nursing.

Keywords

References

  1. Atkins, D., Best, D., Briss, P. A., Eccles, M., Falck-Ytter, Y., Flottorp, S., et al. (2004). Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal, 328, 1490-1494. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490
  2. Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., Horton, R., Moher, D., Olkin, I., et al. (1996). Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 276, 637-639. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030
  3. CONSORT: transparent reporting tirals [Internet]. [cited 2012 May 17]. Available from: http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/
  4. Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health,52, 377-384. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377
  5. Gu, M. O., Cho, M. S., Cho, Y. A., Jeong, J. S., Eun, Y., Jeong, I. S., et al. (2012). A prioritizing for the evidence-based nursing practice guidelines development. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research,18(1), 39-51.
  6. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, & Hallym University Industry Academic Cooperation Foundation. (2009, March). Development of an appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical research.
  7. Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S., (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
  8. Huh, D. S. (2011). NECA's guidance for undertaking systemic reviews and meta-analysis for intervention. Seoul: National Evidence-based healthcare Collaborating Agency.
  9. Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J., Gavaghan, D. J., et al. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomizedclinicaltrials: Is blindingnecessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
  10. Kim, H. J., & Kim, S. Y. (2009). Quality Assessment of Non-Randomized Studies in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 30, 129-137. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2009.30.2.129
  11. Kim, J. H., Choe, M. A., Kim, Y. K., Kim, J. H., Kim, H. S., Park, M. J., et al. (2006). An analysis on the researches using biological measurement in major Korean nursing journals. Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science, 8(2), 61-72.
  12. Kim, S. Y., Ji, S. M., Lee, S. J., Lee, Y. J., Park, J. E., Nam, M. H., et al. (2011). Guidance for development of clinical practice guidelines Ver 1.0. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating agency [NECA].
  13. Lee, J. U. (2009). Reporting guidelines of medical research. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 30, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2009.30.1.1
  14. Lee, K. E., Park, Y. R., Cho, K. J., & Park, M. J. (2011). Research trends in the Korean Biological Nursing Science-Based on analysis of the research papers published in the Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science from 1999 to 2010. Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science, 13(2), 81-93.
  15. Lim, S. M., Shin, E. S., Lee, S. H., Seo, K. H., Jung, Y. M., Jang, J. E. (2011). Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias by levels of evidence. Journal of the Korean Medical Association, 54, 419-429. http://dx.doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54. 4.419
  16. Moher, D., Jones, A., & Lepage, L. (2001). Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials : a comparative before and afier evaluation. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 1992-1995. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.15.1992
  17. Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001). The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134, 657-662. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00011
  18. Park, J., Lee, Y., Seo, H., Jang, B., Son, H., Kim, S.Y., et al. (2011). Risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies (RoBANS): Development and validation of a new instrument. Paper presented at the meeting of the 19th Cochrane colloquium VI international conference on patient safety. Madrid.
  19. Park, M. H. (2006). Understanding and application of evidence based nursing. Seoul: Koonja.
  20. Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. (1th Ed.). London: Churchill Livingstone.
  21. Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. (2nd Ed.). London: Churchill Livingstone.
  22. Schulz, K. F., Altman, D.G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine,152, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-1-201001050-00179
  23. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. (2011). SIGN 50: a guideline developers' handbook (Revised ed.) 2011 [Internet]. Edinburgh : Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; 2011[cited 2012 May 12]. Available from: http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf.
  24. Slim, K., Nini, E., Forestier, D., Kwiatkowski, F., Panis, Y., Chipponi, J. (2003). Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors-MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 73, 712-6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x
  25. STROBE statement [Internet]. [cited 2012 May 17]. Available from : http://www.strobe-statement.org/
  26. von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gotzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2008). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 344-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
  27. Wells, G. A., Shea, B., O'Connell, D., Peterson, J., Welch, V., Losos, M., et al. (2009). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses[Internet]. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; c1996-2010[cited 2012 May 12]. from: http://www.orhi.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.

Cited by

  1. Analysis of Studies on High-Risk Infants and Quality Assessment of Intervention Studies vol.22, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2016.22.2.153
  2. A Systematic Review of Forest Therapy Programs for Elementary School Students vol.23, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2017.23.3.300
  3. The Trends in Research on the Health of North Korean Refugees vol.28, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2017.28.2.144
  4. The Quality of Reporting of Intervention Studies in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (KJWHN): Based on the TREND Guidelines vol.19, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2013.19.4.306
  5. Quality Assessment of Non-Randomized Studies in the Journal of Korean Fundamentals of Nursing vol.21, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2014.21.3.311
  6. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials: The Reporting Guideline for Randomized Controlled Trials vol.14, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.17135/jdhs.2014.14.3.269
  7. Systematic Review of Meaning-centered Interventions for Adolescents vol.24, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2018.24.3.263
  8. 여성 난임 환자에게 적용되는 온라인 기반 중재의 특성 및 효과 분석: 체계적 문헌고찰 vol.25, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5953/jmjh.2018.25.3.205
  9. 회상요법이 치매노인의 우울증상에 미치는 효과: 체계적 문헌고찰 및 메타분석 vol.49, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2019.49.3.225
  10. 초등학생 대상의 국내 구강건강관리 프로그램에 대한 체계적 문헌고찰 vol.20, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13065/jksdh.20200024
  11. Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.57, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57010026
  12. Research Trends on Mobile Mental Health Application for General Population: A Scoping Review vol.18, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052459