Artikel
Methodology guidelines are difficult to find and seldom based on a systematic development process
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
-
Julian Hirt
- University of Basel, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz; Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, International Graduate Academy, Institute for Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Deutschland
-
Hannah Ewald
- University of Basel, University Medical Library, Basel, Schweiz
-
Daeria O. Lawson
- McMaster University, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Kanada
-
Lars G. Hemkens
- University of Basel, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz; Berlin Institute of Health, Meta-Research Innovation Center Berlin (METRIC-B), Berlin, Deutschland
-
Matthias Briel
- University of Basel, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz; McMaster University, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Kanada
-
Stefan Schandelmaier
- University of Basel, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Schweiz; McMaster University, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Kanada
| Veröffentlicht: | 30. August 2022 |
|---|
Gliederung
Text
Background/research question: Methodologists develop guidelines that provide recommendations for the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of studies (methodology guidelines). In principle, methodology guidelines have a great potential to improve the value of health research. Some guidelines, however, show serious limitations regarding accessibility and usefulness, but the extent of the problem is unknown. Our aim was therefore to systematically assess the characteristics of methodology guidelines and explore opportunities for improvement.
Methods: We performed a focused mapping review of methodology guidelines published in high-impact general and methodology-focused medical journals in 2020. We included articles that explicitly stated the objective to provide methodology guidance for health research. Methodologists extracted characteristics related to terminology, structure, topics, transparency, and methods to develop and present the guidelines.
Results: We included 106 eligible methodology guidelines published in 12 different journals. The terminology and methods were highly heterogeneous except for reporting guidelines for which standards have been established. A minority of guidelines provided a structured abstract (42%), methods for development (42%), or the authors’ expertise (23%). Methods for development included stakeholder involvement (28%), systematic review of the methodological literature (21%), and consensus process (20%). Methods for presentation were illustrative case studies (42%), research checklists (36%), and narrative step-by-step guides (9%).
Conclusion: The lack of reporting standards and the fact that most guidelines are not based on a systematic development process makes it difficult for research practitioners to identify methodology guidelines and distinguish between more and less trustworthy recommendations. We will provide suggestions for improving methodology guidelines.
Competing interests: All authors declare no conflict of interest.
