Identifying assessment criteria for in vitro studies: a method and item bank

Author:

Whaley Paul12ORCID,Blain Robyn B3ORCID,Draper Derek4,Rooney Andrew A5ORCID,Walker Vickie R5,Wattam Stephen6ORCID,Wright Rob7,Hooijmans Carlijn R14ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , Baltimore, MD 21205, United States

2. Lancaster Environment Centre , Lancaster University , Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 4YW, United Kingdom

3. ICF International , 1902 Reston Metro Plaza , Reston, VA 20190, United States

4. Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care (Meta Research Team) , Radboudumc , 6525 GA Nijmegen, Netherlands

5. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences , Research Triangle Park , Durham, NC 27709, United States

6. WAP Consulting , Manchester, United Kingdom

7. Welch Medical Library , Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD 21218, United States

Abstract

Abstract To support the development of appraisal tools for assessing the quality of in vitro studies, we developed a method for literature-based discovery of study assessment criteria, used the method to create an item bank of assessment criteria of potential relevance to in vitro studies, and analyzed the item bank to discern and critique current approaches for appraisal of in vitro studies. We searched four research indexes and included any document that identified itself as an appraisal tool for in vitro studies, was a systematic review that included a critical appraisal step, or was a reporting checklist for in vitro studies. We abstracted, normalized, and categorized all criteria applied by the included appraisal tools to create an “item bank” database of issues relevant to the assessment of in vitro studies. The resulting item bank consists of 676 unique appraisal concepts from 67 appraisal tools. We believe this item bank is the single most comprehensive resource of its type to date, should be of high utility for future tool development exercises, and provides a robust methodology for grounding tool development in the existing literature. Although we set out to develop an item bank specifically targeting in vitro studies, we found that many of the assessment concepts we discovered are readily applicable to other study designs. Item banks can be of significant value as a resource; however, there are important challenges in developing, maintaining, and extending them of which researchers should be aware.

Funder

Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Reference34 articles.

1. Making science computable: developing code systems for statistics, study design, and risk of bias;Alper;J Biomed Inform,2021

2. A systematic approach to review of in vitro methods in brain tumour research (SAToRI-BTR): development of a preliminary checklist for evaluating quality and human relevance;Bracher;Front Bioeng Biotechnol,2020

3. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in;von Elm;BMJ,2007

4. Principles and framework for assessing the risk of bias for studies included in comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews;Frampton;Environ Evid,2022

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3