Cargando…

Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND: 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 th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Superchi, Cecilia, González, José Antonio, Solà, Ivan, Cobo, Erik, Hren, Darko, Boutron, Isabelle
Formato:	Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:	English
Publicado:	BioMed Central 2019
Materias:	Research Article
Acceso en línea:	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6402095/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30841850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x

Ejemplares similares

Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research
por: Superchi, Cecilia, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Journal editors’ perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
por: Bruce, Rachel, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018
por: Pina, David G, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality
por: Pussegoda, Kusala, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research
por: Pina, David G., et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Journal editors’ perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
por: Pussegoda, Kusala, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses
por: Baudard, Marie, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration
por: Turner, Lucy, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey
por: Grossetta Nardini, Holly K., et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey
por: Heim, Amytis, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
por: Shea, Beverley J, et al.
Publicado: (2007)

The STROBE extensions: protocol for a qualitative assessment of content and a survey of endorsement
por: Sharp, Melissa K, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews
por: Welsh, Emma J, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Languages for different health information readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats
por: Karačić, Jasna, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines
por: Blanco, David, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study
por: Chauvin, Anthony, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study
por: Hopewell, Sally, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews
por: Roqué, Marta, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials
por: Chauvin, Anthony, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research
por: Blanco, David, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Methodological Quality Assessment of Budget Impact Analyses for Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Review
por: Abdallah, Khadidja, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Quality in peer review
Publicado: (2019)

Applicability and generalisability of published results of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies evaluating four orthopaedic procedures: methodological systematic review
por: Pibouleau, Leslie, et al.
Publicado: (2009)

Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals
por: Gasparyan, Armen Yuri, et al.
Publicado: (2012)

Improving the quality of Peer Review and accelerating the peer review process
por: Jawaid, Shaukat Ali
Publicado: (2023)

Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol
por: Blanco, David, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

The Impact of Systematic Review Automation Tools on Methodological Quality and Time Taken to Complete Systematic Review Tasks: Case Study
por: Clark, Justin, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment
por: Belloti, João Carlos, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool
por: Ho, Robin ST, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review
por: Paludan-Müller, Asger S., et al.
Publicado: (2021)

The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors
por: Chauvin, Anthony, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

A systematic review of Health Technology Assessment tools in sub-Saharan Africa: methodological issues and implications
por: Kriza, Christine, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

The use of clinical study reports to enhance the quality of systematic reviews: a survey of systematic review authors
por: Hodkinson, Alex, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks
por: Vernooij, Robin WM, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies
por: Harrison, Reema, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Cannot write session to /tmp/vufind_sessions/sess_geslboq3s5g15ev0qegvpbqjht