Cargando…

Quality and Impact of Survey Research Among Anesthesiologists: A Systematic Review

New technology has facilitated survey research of anesthesia professional society members. We evaluated prevailing metrics of quality and impact of published research studies based on surveys of anesthesiologists. We hypothesized that adherence to recommended practices (such as use of reminders) wou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Geyer, Emily D, Miller, Rebecca, Kim, Stephani S, Tobias, Joseph D, Nafiu, Olubukola O, Tumin, Dmitry
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32904509
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S259908
_version_ 1783575781059854336
author Geyer, Emily D
Miller, Rebecca
Kim, Stephani S
Tobias, Joseph D
Nafiu, Olubukola O
Tumin, Dmitry
author_facet Geyer, Emily D
Miller, Rebecca
Kim, Stephani S
Tobias, Joseph D
Nafiu, Olubukola O
Tumin, Dmitry
author_sort Geyer, Emily D
collection PubMed
description New technology has facilitated survey research of anesthesia professional society members. We evaluated prevailing metrics of quality and impact of published research studies based on surveys of anesthesiologists. We hypothesized that adherence to recommended practices (such as use of reminders) would be associated with increased survey response rates, and that higher response rates would be associated with higher article impact. Using the MEDLINE database, we identified 45 English-language research articles published in 2010–2017 reporting original data from surveys of anesthesiologists. The median response rate was 37% (IQR: 25–46%). Recommended survey practices, including the use of reminders (p = 0.861) and validated questionnaires (p = 0.719), were not correlated with response rates. In turn, survey response rates were not associated with measures of article impact (p = 0.528). The impact of published research based on surveys of anesthesiologists, as measured by citation scores (p = 0.493) and Altmetrics (p = 0.826), may be driven primarily by the novel data or questions raised using survey methodology, but does not appear to be associated with response rates. Improving reporting of survey methodology and understanding possible sources of non-response bias are important for future studies in this area.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7456338
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74563382020-09-04 Quality and Impact of Survey Research Among Anesthesiologists: A Systematic Review Geyer, Emily D Miller, Rebecca Kim, Stephani S Tobias, Joseph D Nafiu, Olubukola O Tumin, Dmitry Adv Med Educ Pract Review New technology has facilitated survey research of anesthesia professional society members. We evaluated prevailing metrics of quality and impact of published research studies based on surveys of anesthesiologists. We hypothesized that adherence to recommended practices (such as use of reminders) would be associated with increased survey response rates, and that higher response rates would be associated with higher article impact. Using the MEDLINE database, we identified 45 English-language research articles published in 2010–2017 reporting original data from surveys of anesthesiologists. The median response rate was 37% (IQR: 25–46%). Recommended survey practices, including the use of reminders (p = 0.861) and validated questionnaires (p = 0.719), were not correlated with response rates. In turn, survey response rates were not associated with measures of article impact (p = 0.528). The impact of published research based on surveys of anesthesiologists, as measured by citation scores (p = 0.493) and Altmetrics (p = 0.826), may be driven primarily by the novel data or questions raised using survey methodology, but does not appear to be associated with response rates. Improving reporting of survey methodology and understanding possible sources of non-response bias are important for future studies in this area. Dove 2020-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7456338/ /pubmed/32904509 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S259908 Text en © 2020 Geyer et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Review
Geyer, Emily D
Miller, Rebecca
Kim, Stephani S
Tobias, Joseph D
Nafiu, Olubukola O
Tumin, Dmitry
Quality and Impact of Survey Research Among Anesthesiologists: A Systematic Review
title Quality and Impact of Survey Research Among Anesthesiologists: A Systematic Review
title_full Quality and Impact of Survey Research Among Anesthesiologists: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Quality and Impact of Survey Research Among Anesthesiologists: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Quality and Impact of Survey Research Among Anesthesiologists: A Systematic Review
title_short Quality and Impact of Survey Research Among Anesthesiologists: A Systematic Review
title_sort quality and impact of survey research among anesthesiologists: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32904509
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S259908
work_keys_str_mv AT geyeremilyd qualityandimpactofsurveyresearchamonganesthesiologistsasystematicreview
AT millerrebecca qualityandimpactofsurveyresearchamonganesthesiologistsasystematicreview
AT kimstephanis qualityandimpactofsurveyresearchamonganesthesiologistsasystematicreview
AT tobiasjosephd qualityandimpactofsurveyresearchamonganesthesiologistsasystematicreview
AT nafiuolubukolao qualityandimpactofsurveyresearchamonganesthesiologistsasystematicreview
AT tumindmitry qualityandimpactofsurveyresearchamonganesthesiologistsasystematicreview