A methodological review of sex-related access discrimination problems

Sex Roles ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 825-839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Martinko ◽  
William L. Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Methodological Review ◽  
Access Discrimination

scholarly journals Progression from external pilot to definitive randomised controlled trial: a methodological review of progression criteria reporting

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e048178
Author(s):  
Katie Mellor ◽  
Saskia Eddy ◽  
Nicholas Peckham ◽  
Christine M Bond ◽  
Michael J Campbell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Feasibility Studies ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Pilot Trials ◽  
Trial Protocols ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesPrespecified progression criteria can inform the decision to progress from an external randomised pilot trial to a definitive randomised controlled trial. We assessed the characteristics of progression criteria reported in external randomised pilot trial protocols and results publications, including whether progression criteria were specified a priori and mentioned in prepublication peer reviewer reports.Study designMethodological review.MethodsWe searched four journals through PubMed: British Medical Journal Open, Pilot and Feasibility Studies, Trials and Public Library of Science One. Eligible publications reported external randomised pilot trial protocols or results, were published between January 2018 and December 2019 and reported progression criteria. We double data extracted 25% of the included publications. Here we report the progression criteria characteristics.ResultsWe included 160 publications (123 protocols and 37 completed trials). Recruitment and retention were the most frequent indicators contributing to progression criteria. Progression criteria were mostly reported as distinct thresholds (eg, achieving a specific target; 133/160, 83%). Less than a third of the planned and completed pilot trials that included qualitative research reported how these findings would contribute towards progression criteria (34/108, 31%). The publications seldom stated who established the progression criteria (12/160, 7.5%) or provided rationale or justification for progression criteria (44/160, 28%). Most completed pilot trials reported the intention to proceed to a definitive trial (30/37, 81%), but less than half strictly met all of their progression criteria (17/37, 46%). Prepublication peer reviewer reports were available for 153/160 publications (96%). Peer reviewer reports for 86/153 (56%) publications mentioned progression criteria, with peer reviewers of 35 publications commenting that progression criteria appeared not to be specified.ConclusionsMany external randomised pilot trial publications did not adequately report or propose prespecified progression criteria to inform whether to proceed to a future definitive randomised controlled trial.

scholarly journals Quantitative abilities of invertebrates: a methodological review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elia Gatto ◽  
Olli J. Loukola ◽  
Christian Agrillo
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Mate Choice ◽  
Related Species ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Quantitative Information ◽  
Cognitive Skill ◽  
Cognitive Systems ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Ecological Relevance

AbstractQuantitative abilities are widely recognized to play important roles in several ecological contexts, such as foraging, mate choice, and social interaction. Indeed, such abilities are widespread among vertebrates, in particular mammals, birds, and fish. Recently, there has been an increasing number of studies on the quantitative abilities of invertebrates. In this review, we present the current knowledge in this field, especially focusing on the ecological relevance of the capacity to process quantitative information, the similarities with vertebrates, and the different methods adopted to investigate this cognitive skill. The literature argues, beyond methodological differences, a substantial similarity between the quantitative abilities of invertebrates and those of vertebrates, supporting the idea that similar ecological pressures may determine the emergence of similar cognitive systems even in distantly related species.

scholarly journals Methodological review to develop a list of bias items used to assess reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: protocol and rationale

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e045987
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Andrea C Tricco ◽  
Areti-Angeliki Veroniki ◽  
Sofia Dias ◽  
Brian Hutton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Multiple Treatment ◽  
Full Study ◽  
Multiple Treatments ◽  
Treatment Comparisons

IntroductionSystematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA; ie, multiple treatment comparisons, indirect comparisons) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The methodological review aims to develop a list of items relating to biases in reviews with NMA. Such a list will inform a new tool to assess the risk of bias in NMAs, and potentially other reporting or quality checklists for NMAs which are being updated.Methods and analysisWe will include articles that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, articles assessing the methodological quality of reviews with NMA, or papers presenting methods for NMAs. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and difficult to locate/unpublished literature. Once all items have been extracted, we will combine conceptually similar items, classifying them as referring to bias or to other aspects of quality (eg, reporting). When relevant, reporting items will be reworded into items related to bias in NMA review conclusions, and then reworded as signalling questions.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval was required. We plan to publish the full study open access in a peer-reviewed journal, and disseminate the findings via social media (Twitter, Facebook and author affiliated websites). Patients, healthcare providers and policy-makers need the highest quality evidence to make decisions about which treatments should be used in healthcare practice. Being able to critically appraise the findings of systematic reviews that include NMA is central to informed decision-making in patient care.

Blood glucose control algorithms for type 1 diabetic patients: A methodological review

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrin Lunze ◽  
Tarunraj Singh ◽  
Marian Walter ◽  
Mathias D. Brendel ◽  
Steffen Leonhardt
Keyword(s):  
Blood Glucose ◽  
Glucose Control ◽  
Blood Glucose Control ◽  
Control Algorithms ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Type 1 Diabetic Patients
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document