Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33637929›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2021

Questionnaire surveys - sources of error and implications for design, reporting and appraisal.

Andrew Shelley, Keith Horner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British dental journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The impact of a multidisciplinary team on the management of fracture-related infections: A surveillance study in Brazil.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrew ShelleyShelley & Pope Dental Practice, 117 Stockport Road, Denton, Manchester, M34 6DH, UK. andrew@andrewshelley.com.
Keith HornerDivision of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Questionnaire surveys of dentists are a commonly used research method which can yield important results. Nevertheless, in order to give reliable information, surveys must be carefully designed to avoid bias. The challenge of planning, designing and implementing a questionnaire study is often underestimated. While headline response rate is commonly used as an indication of survey quality, there are four potential areas of survey error. These are coverage, sampling, measurement and response. These four areas of error are discussed, with examples from the current literature, to assist readers in critically appraising questionnaire studies. We make 12 key recommendations to researchers to help avoid bias in their research; approaches to response enhancement are also considered. Reporting guidelines for questionnaire studies are suggested which improve transparency and assist in understanding of research methodologies and results. We have termed these guidelines: Reporting Items for Surveys and Questionnaires (RISQ). In conclusion, there is no single solution that can guarantee a successful study. Conversely, failure to pay careful attention to any one of many crucial aspects of survey design can be the downfall of an otherwise robust study.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiasSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID33637929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.