Research is undertaken to answer important questions yet often the question is poorly expressed and lacks information on the population, the exposure or intervention, the comparison, and the outcome. An optimal research question sets out what the investigator wants to know, not what the investigator might do, nor what the results of the study might ultimately contribute. Objective: The purpose of this paper is to estimate the extent to which rehabilitation scientists optimally define their research questions. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of the rehabilitation research articles published during 2008. Two raters independently rated each question according to pre-specified criteria; a third rater adjudicated all discrepant ratings. Results: The proportion of the 258 articles with a question formulated as methods or expected contribution and not as what knowledge was being sought was 65%; 30% of questions required reworking. The designs which most often had poorly formulated research questions were randomized trials, cross-sectional and measurement studies. Conclusion: Formulating the research question is not purely a semantic concern. When the question is poorly formulated, the design, analysis, sample size calculations, and presentation of results may not be optimal. The gap between research and clinical practice could be bridged by a clear, complete, and informative research question.
]]>A new form of literature review has emerged, Mixed Studies Review (MSR). These reviews include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. In the present paper, we examine MSRs in health sciences, and provide guidance on processes that should be included and reported. However, there are no valid and usable criteria for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of the qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. Objective: To propose criteria for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies or study components. Design: A three-step critical review was conducted. Data sources: 2322 references were identified in MEDLINE, and their titles and abstracts were screened; 149 potentially relevant references were selected and the full-text papers were examined; 59 MSRs were retained and scrutinized using a deductive–inductive qualitative thematic data analysis. This revealed three types of MSR: convenience, reproducible, and systematic. Review methods: Guided by a proposal, we conducted a qualitative thematic data analysis of the quality appraisal procedures used in the 17 systematic MSRs (SMSRs). Results: Of 17 SMSRs, 12 showed clear quality appraisal procedures with explicit criteria but no SMSR used valid checklists to concomitantly appraise qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. In two SMSRs, criteria were developed following a specific procedure. Checklists usually contained more criteria than needed. In four SMSRs, a reliability assessment was described or mentioned. While criteria for quality appraisal were usually based on descriptors that require specific methodological expertise (e.g., appropriateness), no SMSR described the fit between reviewers’ expertise and appraised studies. Quality appraisal usually resulted in studies being ranked by methodological quality.
]]>