We are running a systematic review of methods used to assess toxicity from glucocorticoids in inflammatory conditions (Prospero registration: CRD42022346875). We are in the process of screening and selecting papers for full-text review. As part of the quality appraisal we are thinking using the MAPP tool but several studies (e.g., DOI: 10.1111/jep.12884, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008) present some conflicting findings as for the tool's usefulness. Studies conclude that Additional validation research on the MMAT is still
needed. In our review we will include some mixed methods studies but most quantitative studies (e.g., RCT, observationals, cross-sectionals, validation, etc.). Given the broad nature of the study, we think this tools deemed appropriate, yet, we doubt as for its sound efficacy. Any previous experience or thoughs, would be much appreciated.
There are several tools, but evaluation cannot be reduced to the mechanical. Shift to the tool you have to a guideline and holistically and individually evaluate the theory, question, methodology, data collection/analysis, and results. Other journals found guidelines/checklists often oversimplified and ignored particulars of a study. Give guidance but freedom.
As someone who peer reviews often, I've found the best and worst. The best ask 4-5 reviewers and consider everyone's opinions with the expectation one reviews and writes depth and breadth. Fair have formal guidelines and ask 2. The worst? They do not consider reviews they don't like; I've pointed out statistical or qualitative errors which simply aren't addressed.
David Coker I get your point. It seems your answer points toward what best work for the research topic and the results someone wants to generate. I am still inclined to use more structured methods as these have been somehow tested and examined in different contexts, but I think what you say is useful, not to get caught up by the checklists.
thank you.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medical Science Nursing
- Dissertations