Three-minute critical appraisal of a case series article

Chan, Kevin; Bhandari, Mohit

doi:10.4103/0019-5413.77126

Cited by 78 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is due to a lack of good-quality studies rather than there being evidence of a lack of effect. It is important to note the predominance of case series or case study designs in the field representing only level IV evidence [78]. There is currently a dearth of studies with comparator arms, which while presenting challenges must be a future priority if the evidence base is to be strengthened.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions Using High-Technology Communication Devices: A State of the Art Review

Baxter

Enderby

Evans

et al. 2012

Folia Phoniatr Logop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: In the last 20 years the range of high-technology augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) aids has rapidly expanded. This review aimed to provide a ‘state of the art’ synthesis, to provide evidence-based information for researchers, potential users and service providers. Methods: Electronic databases were searched from 2000 to 2010, together with reference lists of included papers and review papers. The review considered work of any design which reported an intervention using high-tech AAC with people who have communication difficulties (excluding those with solely hearing or visual loss) published in peer-reviewed journals. Results: Sixty-five papers reporting interventions using high-tech AAC were identified. There was evidence that high-technology AAC may be beneficial across a range of diagnoses and ages. The evidence, however, is currently drawn from studies using designs considered to be at high risk of bias. Conclusion: The review suggests that the high level of individual variation in outcome requires a greater understanding of characteristics of clients who may or may not benefit from this technology. Also, the wide range of outcomes measured requires further work in the field to establish what a ‘good outcome’ from intervention may be.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions Using High-Technology Communication Devices: A State of the Art Review

Baxter

Enderby

Evans

et al. 2012

Folia Phoniatr Logop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A case series is a report on data from a subject group (multiple patients) without control [6,[11][12]. Commonly, this design is used for the illustration of novel, unusual, or atypical features identified in medical practice [6].…”

Section: Case Seriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The investigator is governed by the availability and accuracy of the records, which can cause biases [13][14]. Bias in a case series can be decreased through consecutive patient enrollment and predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, explicit specification of study duration, and enrollment of participants ( Table 2) [11][12].…”

Section: Case Seriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observational Study Designs: Synopsis for Selecting an Appropriate Study Design

Rezigalla¹

2020

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The selection of a study design is the most critical step in the research methodology. Crucial factors should be considered during the selection of the study design, which is the formulated research question, as well as the method of participant selection. Different study designs can be applied to the same research question(s). Research designs are classified as qualitative, quantitative, and mixed design. Observational design occupies the middle and lower parts of the hierarchy of evidence-based pyramid. The observational design is subdivided into descriptive, including cross-sectional, case report or case series, and correlational, and analytic which includes cross-section, case-control, and cohort studies. Each research design has its uses and points of strength and limitations. The aim of this article to provide a simplified approach for the selection of descriptive study design.

show abstract

“…After excluding duplicates, we manually revised each abstract and did a full text review if needed, to determine if the preprints were related to COVID-19 pharmacological interventions. We decided to include any study design, including case series that reported and/or made an analysis on pharmacological interventions, as case series may motivate the development of studies of a stronger design to test a determined treatment (Chan & Bhandari, 2011). We excluded all studies that a) were not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or b) were not related to pharmacological interventions.…”

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations and publication rate of preprints on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19: The good, the bad and, the ugly.

Nicolalde

Añazco

Mushtaq

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. On December 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints regarding pharmacological interventions against COVID-19 were cited, in spite of the fact that some of these preprints remained unpublished.Methods: We conducted a search on medRxiv and bioRxiv to identify preprints related to pharmacological interventions against SARS-CoV-2 from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020. We included any study type that addressed or reported data on pharmacological interventions. We gathered metadata on June 26, 2020 of included preprints and identified if they had been published in a scholarly journal. We performed Mann-Whitney U tests to evaluate if published articles had differences in citation counts or metrics, as defined by PDF downloads and abstract reads, when compared to unpublished preprints.Results: Our sample included 97 preprints, of which 23 were published on scholarly journals and 74 remained unpublished (Publication rate of 23,7%). The most common study designs we found among preprints were basic science research and case series. The number of citations in our sample ranged from 0 to 1409 for published articles, and ranged from 0 to 175 citations for unpublished preprints. Published articles had a significantly higher number of citations when compared to unpublished preprints (p=0,000013). We did not find a statistical difference in PDF download (p=0,167) and abstract reads (p= 0,181). In the published articles, the time from posting on a preprint server to publication on a journal ranged from 0 to 98 days (median: 42.0 days). The time period from date of submission to a journal to date of acceptance in our sample ranged from 1 to 228 days (median: 23 days). Almost half of the preprints that were subsequently published (47,8%) had modifications made to the result section after peer-review.Conclusions: The publication rate of the preprints in this sample was low (1 in 4), although review times in scholarly journals seems to be accelerated. However, there was no difference in the number of views or downloads between preprints already published in scholarly journals and those not yet.

show abstract

Three-minute critical appraisal of a case series article

Cited by 78 publications

References 3 publications

Interventions Using High-Technology Communication Devices: A State of the Art Review

Interventions Using High-Technology Communication Devices: A State of the Art Review

Observational Study Designs: Synopsis for Selecting an Appropriate Study Design

Citations and publication rate of preprints on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19: The good, the bad and, the ugly.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About