Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Purchasing High-Cost Medical Equipment in Hospitals in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review Protocol

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiJournal Preprints
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review

Submit
Authors
Reviewers
Editors
About

WikiJournal User Group is a publishing group of open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. <seo title=" Wikiversity Journal User Group, WikiJournal Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

<meta name='citation_doi' value=>

Article information

Authors: Saba Hinrichs-Krapels[b]  , Harriet Boulding[c]  , Anastasia Chalkidou[a]  , Bor Ditewig[d], Jamie Erskine[a]  , Farhad Shokraneh[a][i]  

See author information ▼
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 King's Technology Evaluation Centre (KiTEC), London Institute of Healthcare Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
  2. ↑ The Policy Institute, King's College London, London, UK; Multi-Actor System, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands. Harriet Boulding, The Policy Institute, King's College London, London, UK
  3. ↑ The Policy Institute, King's College London, London, UK
  4. ↑ Multi-Actor System, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
  1. ↑ FarhadShokraneh@gmail.com

This is the pre-publication public peer review for the article Purchasing High-Cost Medical Equipment in Hospitals in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review Protocol

Plagiarism check[edit source]

Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool: Flagged terms, like “World Health Organization (WHO)”, “medical devices and equipment”, “at the time of the trial” and “'capital' expenditures” were appropriate. --Alaa :)..! 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial note[edit source]

I have checked with the authors and, as this has already been cited as a pre-print, they wish to proceed and not to withdraw this pre-print Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review 1[edit source]


Review by Athikhun Suwannakhan ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

I thank the authors for submitting this interesting manuscript. There are a few concerns on the protocol which could either be improved or noted as limitations.

The potential included articles are not necessary written in English. As a result, including only articles written in English could lead to a possible number of articles being overlooked.

How many reviewers conducted the review?

What were or would be the keywords used? Suggestions on keywords and the use of boolean operators should be added.

These reports are not always indexed in academic journal databases such as Scopus, MEDLINE, etc. I agree with the authors that using Google Scholar or Google would be effective at identifying studies and reports in the grey literature. Personally I do find them extremely useful. However, please be aware that number of entries yielded from these two databases cannot be replicated (http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1991-7902(22)00205-7/sref80).

It was mentioned that “Non-academic articles, news, webpages, notes are excluded”. What is the purpose of using Google or Google Scholar then?

Will each included study be assessed for risk of bias (in other words, quality assessment)?

How will the results of the review be tabulated or reported? Will they be reported quantitatively or qualitatively. If quantitatively, which statistical methods would be used to synthesize these results?

Response to Review 1[edit source]

(Pasted in by @rwatson1955) Thank you, @Athikhun Suwannakhan, for spending time to review our protocol.

Comment: The potential included articles are not necessary written in English. As a result, including only articles written in English could lead to a possible number of articles being overlooked.

Reply: As a result, we excluded non-English studies and reported this limitation in the final report (Hinrichs-Krapels et al. 2022).

Comment: How many reviewers conducted the review?

Reply: As an accepted practice in systematic reviews, two independent reviewers conducted screening. One reviewer extracted the data and the second reviewer double-checked the data against the original paper and completed the missing data if any. The details are reported in the published final report (Hinrichs-Krapels et al. 2022).

Comment: What were or would be the keywords used? Suggestions on keywords and the use of boolean operators should be added.

Reply: Since this is a protocol, the search strategy is required for one source and we have reported it under Systematic search in fou numbered lines using boolean operators. The search was designed and conducted by an expert information scientist and the peer-reviewed and published full search strategies for all databases have been reported as an open access file in the published final report (Hinrichs-Krapels et al. 2022).

Comment: These reports are not always indexed in academic journal databases such as Scopus, MEDLINE, etc. I agree with the authors that using Google Scholar or Google would be effective at identifying studies and reports in the grey literature. Personally I do find them extremely useful. However, please be aware that number of entries yielded from these two databases cannot be replicated (http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1991-7902(22)00205-7/sref80).

Reply: Since Google and Google Scholar are not the main sources for search and we use them as complementary sources in addition to the main sources. As you rightly mentioned, we are aware that the results from the search engines are not replicable and they change by changing the location or as the time passes.

Comment: It was mentioned that “Non-academic articles, news, webpages, notes are excluded”. What is the purpose of using Google or Google Scholar then? Reply: Google and Google Scholar can retireive the articles that have not been indexed in Scopus, MEDLINE, or other bibliographic databases. For example, it takes between 6 months to 3 years for the new journals to be indexed in Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus.

Comment: Will each included study be assessed for risk of bias (in other words, quality assessment)?

Reply: The review provides a narrative summary of the evidence. Since no meta-analysis ot GRADE-based recommendation is not conducted, the design of the studies is very diverse in the field and there is not accepted tool for assessing the quality of studies, we restrained outselfs to reporting the Limitatations of studies in a Table as the only possible quality assessment option for this review. Please see the final published report for more details (Hinrichs-Krapels et al. 2022).

Comment: How will the results of the review be tabulated or reported? Will they be reported quantitatively or qualitatively. If quantitatively, which statistical methods would be used to synthesize these results?

Reply: Because of the diversity of study designs, we planned to report the data narratively, and in the tabulated format without conducting quantitative or qualitative analysis or synthesis. Please see the final published report for more details (Hinrichs-Krapels et al. 2022).

Reference: Hinrichs-Krapels S, Ditewig B, Boulding H, Chalkidou A, Erskine J, Shokraneh F. Purchasing high-cost medical devices and equipment in hospitals: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 1;12(9):e057516. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057516. PMID: 36581959; PMCID: PMC9438058.

Kind regards, Farhad Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WikiJournal_Preprints/Purchasing_High-Cost_Medical_Equipment_in_Hospitals_in_OECD_Countries:_A_Systematic_Review_Protocol&oldid=2620890"