Match!

Checklists for external validity: a systematic review

Published on Dec 1, 2014in Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice1.54
· DOI :10.1111/jep.12166
Anne-Kirstine Dyrvig3
Estimated H-index: 3
(University of Southern Denmark),
Kristian Kidholm11
Estimated H-index: 11
(OUH: Odense University Hospital)
+ 1 AuthorsHindrik Vondeling14
Estimated H-index: 14
(University of Southern Denmark)
Abstract
Rationale, aims and objectives The quality of the current literature on external validity varies considerably. An improved checklist with validated items on external validity would aid decision-makers in judging similarities among circumstances when transferring evidence from a study setting to an implementation setting. In this paper, currently available checklists on external validity are identified, assessed and used as a basis for proposing a new improved instrument. Method A systematic literature review was carried out in Pubmed, Embase and Cinahl on English-language papers without time restrictions. The retrieved checklist items were assessed for (i) the methodology used in primary literature, justifying inclusion of each item; and (ii) the number of times each item appeared in checklists. Results Fifteen papers were identified, presenting a total of 21 checklists for external validity, yielding a total of 38 checklist items. Empirical support was considered the most valid methodology for item inclusion. Assessment of methodological justification showed that none of the items were supported empirically. Other kinds of literature justified the inclusion of 22 of the items, and 17 items were included on the basis of consensus. On 36 occasions, the items were presented without methodological justification for inclusion. Assessment of frequency/occurrence showed that items were mentioned in one to at most 17 checklists. Conclusion This paper provides building blocks for the development of a new checklist for external validity. The next step is provision of empirical evidence for the checklist items to be selected, and finally, development and validation of a checklist on external validity.
  • References (27)
  • Citations (10)
References27
Newest
#1David AtkinsH-Index: 24
#2Stephanie Chang (AHRQ: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)H-Index: 20
Last.David B. Matchar (NUS: National University of Singapore)H-Index: 71
view all 7 authors...
#1David Moher (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute)H-Index: 126
#2Sally Hopewell (University of Oxford)H-Index: 41
Last.Douglas G. Altman (University of Oxford)H-Index: 208
view all 9 authors...
#1Laura C. Leviton (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation)H-Index: 26
#2Laura Kettel Khan (CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)H-Index: 36
Last.David CottonH-Index: 5
view all 5 authors...
#1Olaf M. Dekkers (LUMC: Leiden University Medical Center)H-Index: 52
#2E von Elm (University of Bern)H-Index: 39
Last.Jan P. Vandenbroucke (LUMC: Leiden University Medical Center)H-Index: 76
view all 5 authors...
Cited By10
Newest
#1Mahrukh Saleem (BU: Bournemouth University)
#2Teresa Burdett (BU: Bournemouth University)
Last.Vanessa Heaslip (BU: Bournemouth University)H-Index: 8
view all 3 authors...
#1Heather Menzies Munthe-Kaas (FHI: Norwegian Institute of Public Health)H-Index: 9
#2Heid Nøkleby (FHI: Norwegian Institute of Public Health)
Last.Lien Nguyen (FHI: Norwegian Institute of Public Health)
view all 3 authors...
#1Georgina Gethin (Monash University)H-Index: 16
#2John D. Ivory (National University of Ireland, Galway)H-Index: 1
Last.Carolina Dragica Weller (Monash University)H-Index: 10
view all 0 authors...
#1Anja Maria Brænd (University of Oslo)H-Index: 5
#2Jørund Straand (University of Oslo)H-Index: 22
Last.Atle Klovning (University of Oslo)H-Index: 10
view all 3 authors...
View next paperHow do we know when research from one setting can be useful in another? A review of external validity, applicability and transferability frameworks: