STORIES statement: Publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis

BMC Medicine

Trevor Gibbs²  Morris Gordon¹ 

[1]Department of Child Health, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool, UK

[2]Association of Medical Education in Europe, Dundee, UK

关键词: Evidence based education;    Evidence based medicine;    Secondary research;    Systematic review;    Evidence synthesis;   

Others  :  1121489
DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-014-0143-0

 received in 2014-05-07, accepted in 2014-08-01,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Evidence synthesis techniques in healthcare education have been enhanced through the activities of experts in the field and the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaborative. Despite this, significant heterogeneity in techniques and reporting of healthcare education systematic review still exist and limit the usefulness of such reports. The aim of this project was to produce the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement to offer a guide for reporting evidence synthesis in health education for use by authors and journal editors.

Methods

A review of existing published evidence synthesis consensus statements was undertaken. A modified Delphi process was used. In stage one, expert participants were asked to state whether common existing items identified were relevant, to suggest relevant texts and specify any items they feel should be included. The results were analysed and a second stage commenced where all synthesised items were presented and participants asked to state whether they should be included or amend as needed. After further analysis, the full statement was sent for final review and comment.

Results

Nineteen experts participated in the panel from 35 invitations. Thirteen text sources were proposed, six existing items amended and twelve new items synthesised. After stage two, 25 amended consensus items were proposed for inclusion. The final statement contains several items unique to this context, including description of relevant conceptual frameworks or theoretical constructs, description of qualitative methodologies with rationale for their choice and presenting the implications for educators in practice of the results obtained.

Conclusions

An international expert panel has agreed upon a consensus statement of 25 items for the reporting of evidence synthesis within healthcare education. This unique set of items is focused on context, rather than a specific methodology. This statement can be used for those writing for publication and reviewing such manuscripts to ensure reporting supports and best informs the wider healthcare education community.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gordon and Gibbs; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A, Pham B, Klassen TP: Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess 1999, 3:12.
• [2]Burgers JS, Grol R, Klazinga NS, Makela M, Zaat J: Towards evidence-based clinical practice: an international survey of 18 clinical guideline programs. Int J Qual Health Care 2003, 15:31-45.
• [3]Hall JC, Platell C: Half life of truth in surgical literature. Lancet 1997, 350:1752.
• [4]Poynard T, Munteanu M, Ratziu V, Benhamou Y, Di Martino V, Taieb J, Opolon P: Truth survival in clinical research: an evidence-based requiem? Ann Intern Med 2002, 136:888-895.
• [5]Bligh J, Anderson MB: Medical teachers and evidence. Med Educ 2000, 24:162-163.
• [6]Carline JD: Funding medical education research: opportunities and issues. Acad Med 2004, 79:918-924.
• [7]Chen FM, Burstin H, Huntington J: The importance of clinical outcomes in medical education research. Med Educ 2005, 39:350-351.
• [8]Todres M, Stephenson A, Jones R: Medical education research remains the poor relation. BMJ 2007, 335:333-335.
• [9]Dornan T, Peile JS, Spencer J: On ‘evidence’. Med Educ 2008, 42:232-233.
• [10]Gordon M, Darbyshire D, Baker P: Separating the wheat from the chaff: the role of systematic review in medical education. Med Educ 2013, 47:632.
• [11]Harden RM, Grant J, Buckley G, Hart IR: BEME Guide No 1: Best Evidence Medical Education. Med Teach 1999, 21:3-15.
• [12]Prideaux D, Bligh J: Research in medical education: asking the right questions. Med Educ 2002, 36:1114-1115.
• [13]Prystowsky JB, Bordage G: An outcomes research perspective on medical education: the predominance of trainee assessment and satisfaction. Med Educ 2001, 35:331-336.
• [14]Pope C, Mays N, Popay J: Synthesising Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence. Open University Press, Maidenhead; 2007.
• [15]Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt H: Description, justification, and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ 2008, 42:128-133.
• [16]Bordage G: Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ 2009, 43:312-319.
• [17][http://www.bemecollaboration.org/] webcite Best Evidence Medical Education Collaboration. []
• [18]Bearman M, Dawson P: Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ 2013, 47:252-260.
• [19]Gordon M, Carneiro AV, Patricio M, Gibbs T: Missed opportunities in health care evidence synthesis. Med Educ 2014, 48:644-645.
• [20]Cook DA, Levinson A, Garside S, Dupras D, Erwin P, Montori V: Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008, 300:1181-1196.
• [21]Dexter H, Dornan T: Technology-enhanced learning: appraising the evidence. Med Educ 2010, 44:746-748.
• [22]Gordon M, Chandratilake M, Baker P: Low fidelity, but high quality: a model for e-learning. Clin Teach 2013, 10:258-263.
• [23]Cook DA, Garside S, Levinson AJ, Dupras DM, Montori VM: What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Med Educ 2010, 44:765-774.
• [24]Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz K, Montori V, Gotzsche P, Devereaux P, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG: CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trial. BMJ 2010, 340:c869.
• [25]Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009, 339:b2700.
• [26]Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, Ogrinc G, Mooney S: SQUIRE Development Group. Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. Ann Intern Med 2008, 149:670-676.
• [27]Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R: RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med 2013, 11:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G: Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 2010, 340:c221.
• [29]Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000, 283:2008-2012.
• [30]Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A: Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess 1999, 3:i-iv. 1-98
• [31][http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/9973/] webcite Gordon M, Gibbs T: STORIES statement. Available at: .
• [32]Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Pawson R: Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ 2010, 10:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Birden H, Glass N, Wilson I, Harrison M, Usherwood T, Nass D: Teaching professionalism in medical education: A Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No.25. Med Teach 2013, 35:e1252-e1266.
• [34]Gordon M, Darbyshire D, Saifuddin A, Vimalesvaran K: Limitations of poster presentations reporting educational innovations at a major international medical education conference. Med Educ Online 2013, 18:1-4.
• [35][http://www.bemecollaboration.org/Reviews+In+Progress/CEMESTR/] webcite Ellaway R, Strasser R, Graves L, Marsh D, Cervin C, Fink P: Community Engaged Medical Education: Systematic Thematic Reviews (CEMESTR) (Systematic review protocol). 2013, .
• [36]Gordon M, Darbyshire D, Baker P: Educational interventions to improve patient safety: a systematic review. Med Educ 2012, 46:1042-1054.
• [37]Gordon M, Findley R: Educational interventions to improve handover in health care: a systematic review. Med Educ 2011, 45:1081-1089.
• [38]Hoffmann TC, Erueti C, Glasziou PP: Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ 2013, 347:f3755.
• [39]Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M: Quality of reporting randomised trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 2002, 287:2801-2804.
• [40]Tochel C, Haig A, Hesketh A, Cadzow A, Beggs K, Colthart I, Peacock H: The effectiveness of portfolios for post-graduate assessment and education: BEME Guide No 12. Med Teach 2009, 31:299-318.
• [41]Wolf FM: Lessons to be learned from evidence-based medicine: practice and promise of evidence-based education. Med Teach 2000, 22:251-259.
• [42]Ilgen JS, Sherbino J, Cook DA: Technology-enhanced simulation in emergency medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med 2013, 20:117-127.
• [43]Cherry GM, Fletcher I, O'Sullivan H, Shaw N: What impact do structured educational sessions to increase emotional intelligence have on medical students? BEME Guide 17. Med Teach 2012, 34:11-19.
• [44]Harris J, Kearley K, Heneghan C, Meats E, Kearley-Shiers K, Roberts N: Are journal clubs effective in supporting evidence-based decision making? BEME Guide 16. Med Teach 2011, 33:9-23.