ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Development, validation, and usage of metrics to evaluate the quality of clinical research hypotheses.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Metrics and instruments can provide guidance for clinical researchers to assess their potential research projects at an early stage before significant investment. Furthermore, metrics can also provide structured criteria for peer reviewers to assess others' clinical research manuscripts or grant proposals. This study aimed to develop, test, validate, and use evaluation metrics and instruments to accurately, consistently, and conveniently assess the quality of scientific hypotheses for clinical research projects. Materials and Methods: Metrics development went through iterative stages, including literature review, metrics and instrument development, internal and external testing and validation, and continuous revisions in each stage based on feedback. Furthermore, two experiments were conducted to determine brief and comprehensive versions of the instrument. Results: The brief version of the instrument contained three dimensions: validity, significance, and feasibility. The comprehensive version of metrics included novelty, clinical relevance, potential benefits and risks, ethicality, testability, clarity, interestingness, and the three dimensions of the brief version. Each evaluation dimension included 2 to 5 subitems to evaluate the specific aspects of each dimension. For example, validity included clinical validity and scientific validity. The brief and comprehensive versions of the instruments included 12 and 39 subitems, respectively. Each subitem used a 5-point Likert scale. Conclusion: The validated brief and comprehensive versions of metrics can provide standardized, consistent, and generic measurements for clinical research hypotheses, allow clinical researchers to prioritize their research ideas systematically, objectively, and consistently, and can be used as a tool for quality assessment during the peer review process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.