649 The Quality of Survey Research in Burn Care: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.137 | 0.426 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".