| ORIGINAL ARTICLE
|Year : 2022 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 221-230
The development of QERM scoring system for comprehensive assessment of the Quality of Empirical Research in Medicine - Part 1
Research Quality Improvement Group*
Purpose: Whereas a large number of features are mentioned to connote the quality of medical research, no tool is available to comprehensively measure it objectively across different types of studies. Also, all the available tools are for reporting, and none includes quality of the inputs and the process of research. The present paper is aimed to initiate a discussion on the need to develop such a comprehensive scoring system (in the first place), to show that it is feasible, and to describe the process of developing a credible system.
Method: An expert group comprising researchers, reviewers, and editors of medical journals extensively reviewed the literature on the quality of medical research and held detailed discussions to parse quality at all stages of medical research into specific domains and items that can be assigned scores on the pattern of quality-of-life score.
Results: Besides identifying the domains of the quality of medical research, a comprehensive tool for scoring emerged that can be possibly used to objectively measure the quality of empirical research comprising surveys, trials, and observational studies. Thus, this can be used as a tool to assess Quality of Empirical Research in Medicine (QERM). The expert group confirmed its face and content validity. The tool can be used by the researchers for self-assessment and improvement before submission of a paper for publication, and the reviewers and editors can use this for assessing the submissions. Published papers can also be rated such as those included in a meta-analysis.
Conclusion: It is feasible to devise a comprehensive scoring system comprising domains and items for assessing the quality of medical research end-to-end from choosing a problem to publication. The proposed scoring system needs to be reviewed by the researchers and needs to be validated.
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*