PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7494953

[Research methods and instruments].

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Research papers published on some of the most well known medical and nursing journals are presented and discussed. The main aim of the contribution, which opens a new arena for discussion on the Rivista dell'Infermiere is to critically appraise published research works focusing both on strengths and novelty as well as weaknesses in the hypothesis formulation, methods and instruments used, discussion of results. A critical analysis should enable nurses to start learn to read and eventually write a research protocol, possibly avoiding some common mistakes.

Explore related subjects

BiasClinical ProtocolsHumansNursing ResearchPublishingReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

[Research methods and instruments].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7494953/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed1995

Alternative approaches for estimating prevalence in epidemiologic surveys with two waves of respondents.

Estimates of prevalence in epidemiologic surveys are prone to bias due to selective response. Therefore, much effort is devoted to reduce the number of nonrespondents. For example, individuals who do not respond in the first round of recruitment in mail surveys are usually contacted a second (or even third or fourth) time yielding consecutive waves of responses. Yet this sequence of waves is often neglected in epidemiologic analyses in that prevalence is simply estimated as the proportion of trait-positive individuals among the total group of respondents. This paper investigates alternative estimates of prevalence that might be used in surveys with two waves of respondents. The estimates are based on different assumptions on the relation of response rates with the trait of interest. As this relation is likely to vary from survey to survey depending on the specific circumstances under which the recruitment of participants is conducted, none of the estimates is universally preferable. The performance of the different estimates is assessed in a variety of hypothetical and empirical examples, and strategies are discussed to make the best use of the different estimates in the analysis of epidemiologic studies.

Bias↗