The quality of reporting of Health Informatics evaluation studies优质的健康信息的评价的研究的的报告.pptVIP

下载本文档

1
0
约3.97千字
约 19页
2018-06-18 发布于福建
举报
版权申诉

The quality of reporting of Health Informatics evaluation studies优质的健康信息的评价的研究的的报告.ppt

1、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。。
2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
4、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
5、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
6、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

The quality of reporting of Health Informatics evaluation studies优质的健康信息的评价的研究的的报告

The quality of reporting of Health Informatics evaluation studies Jan Talmon, Elske Ammenwerth, Thom Geven University Maastricht, UMIT Content Background STARE-HI Study design Results Discussion Future prospects Background HISEVAL workshop 2003 Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems: Reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck, IJMI, 2004, 479 Poor quality of manuscripts submitted to MI journals Editor and reviewer perspective Development of STARE-HI STAtement on the Reporting of Evaluation studies in Health Informatics Background Study questions: Can STARE-HI be used for the assessment of the quality of evaluation studies in HI What is the current quality of reporting What areas are open for improvement STARE-HI Iterative development Core writing team (JT, EA), active discussants, open comments through publication on Internet: http://iig.umit.at/efmi/ There are 12 item categories described, some expanded Title, abstract, keywords, introduction*, study context*, methods*, results*, discussion*, conclusion, conflict of interest, references, apendices Study Design Hand search of all issues of 2005 of three major MI journals – consensus (JTEA) IJMI, JAMIA, MIM Develop a scoring list from STARE-HI (TG) Test usability of scoring form 3 papers assessed by 5 reviewers Apply revised form on all selected papers Results – paper selection 282 papers reviewed on basis of title and abstract 55 selected by JT 37 selected by EA Initial agreement on 32 Final selection 48 papers: 21 IJMI, 23 JAMIA, 4 MIM Results – Scoring form Extract issues from description in STARE-HI The abstract should preferably be structured and must clearly describe the objective, setting, participants, measures, study design, major results, limitations and conclusions Each issue scored Maximum score/item For abstract maximum is 9 Results – usability of form 5 reviewers EA, TG, JB, PN, NdK All familiar with STARE-HI 3 papers Fitted to various d