649 The Quality of Survey Research in Burn Care: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Burn care is a relatively small field with contributions from many healthcare disciplines. Further, the practice of burn care varies considerably from center to center and between regions. Given these factors, survey studies are frequently used to better understand practice variations, establish guidelines, and direct future research questions. If survey research is poorly designed or reported, it limits the ability to form meaningful conclusions. Given the prevalence of clinician surveys published in burn care, this study aims to evaluate its quality and to determine which approaches lead to a more successful survey. Methods A systematic review was performed by two independent reviewers using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for the dates January 1, 2000 to March 19, 2020. Articles were included if they were published in English and surveyed providers on a topic related to burn care. Surveys of patients, those that evaluated an intervention or included other research designs were excluded. Data related to survey content, methodology, and quality was extracted independently by two reviewers. Results The search identified 7351 non-duplicate citations, of which 247 underwent full text review, and 144 met inclusion criteria. The number of published surveys increased by an average of 21% annually over the study period (P< 0.001). The majority of surveys originated in the United States (40%), United Kingdom (19%) and Canada (7%) and were either national (47%) or international (37%) in scope. The most common themes were education/training/workforce (21%), resuscitation/critical care (17%) and wound care (14%). Burn surgeons/physicians (45%) were the most frequently surveyed population, but all disciplines were represented. The majority of surveys were electronic (51%) and sampled all members of a defined group (72%). Few studies reported the use of reminders (29%) or incentives (2%) to improve survey completion. In terms of quality, the majority did not report any survey development steps (71%) or survey validity/reliability (92%), and half did not include the questionnaire in the manuscript or appendix. A response rate was calculated in 82% of studies. The median (IQR) response rate of all studies was 54% (32–83). A subgroup analysis of national and international studies sent electronically to burn surgeons/physicians (N=28) had a response rate of 40% (26–50). Conclusions Survey research is increasingly published in the burn care literature and covers a range of themes and populations. Despite the limited use of reminders and incentives, survey participation is relatively high. The quality of survey reporting is generally poor, limiting the ability to apply this research into practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,137 | 0,426 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,014 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,023 | 0,029 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».