Quality of survey reporting in nephrology journals: a methodologic review.

Clin J Am Soc Nephrol

Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada;

Published: December 2014

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigates the quality of reporting in surveys published in nephrology journals between 2001 and 2011, highlighting concerns about inadequate reporting affecting result validity.
  • Approximately 102 surveys were analyzed, showing that while 85% of studies reported response rates, only 46% discussed questionnaire development and just 28% mentioned validity or reliability.
  • Despite some improvement in reporting missing data over the years, the overall quality of survey reporting in nephrology journals was found to be suboptimal.

Article Abstract

Background And Objectives: Survey research is an important research method used to determine individuals' attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors; however, as with other research methods, inadequate reporting threatens the validity of results. This study aimed to describe the quality of reporting of surveys published between 2001 and 2011 in the field of nephrology.

Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: The top nephrology journals were systematically reviewed (2001-2011: American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, and Kidney International; 2006-2011: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology) for studies whose primary objective was to collect and report survey results. Included were nephrology journals with a heavy focus on clinical research and high impact factors. All titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. Surveys were excluded if they were part of a multimethod study, evaluated only psychometric characteristics, or used semi-structured interviews. Information was collected on survey and respondent characteristics, questionnaire development (e.g., pilot testing), psychometric characteristics (e.g., validity and reliability), survey methods used to optimize response rate (e.g., system of multiple contacts), and response rate.

Results: After a screening of 19,970 citations, 216 full-text articles were reviewed and 102 surveys were included. Approximately 85% of studies reported a response rate. Almost half of studies (46%) discussed how they developed their questionnaire and only a quarter of studies (28%) mentioned the validity or reliability of the questionnaire. The only characteristic that improved over the years was the proportion of articles reporting missing data (2001-2004: 46.4%; 2005-2008: 61.9%; and 2009-2011: 84.8%; respectively) (P<0.01).

Conclusions: The quality of survey reporting in nephrology journals remains suboptimal. In particular, reporting of the validity and reliability of the questionnaire must be improved. Guidelines to improve survey reporting and increase transparency are clearly needed.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255395PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.2215/CJN.02130214DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

nephrology journals
12
psychometric characteristics
8
validity reliability
8
response rate
8
nephrology
5
quality survey
4
reporting
4
survey reporting
4
reporting nephrology
4
journals methodologic
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!