Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Jaukto metožu novērtēšanas rīks: Pētījumu dizainu kvalitātes izvērtēšana× | Cochrane riska novērtēšanas rīks 2.0 randomizētiem kontrolētiem pētījumiem× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare | Pētniecības metodoloģija | Pētniecības metodoloģija |
| Saime | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | 2014 (updated 2018) | 2019 |
| Autors≠ | Pluye et al. | Jonathan Sterne, Julian Higgins (Cochrane Collaboration) |
| Tips≠ | Research methodology evaluation | Clinician-rated / Research team assessment |
| Pirmavots≠ | Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 29–45. DOI ↗ | Sterne, J. A., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., ... & Higgins, J. P. (2019). RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 366, l4898. DOI ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi | MMAT, MMAT 2018 | RoB 2.0, RoB 2 |
| Saistītās | 4 | 4 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | MMAT (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) is a practical, design-agnostic quality assessment tool developed by Pluye et al. (2014, updated 2018) to evaluate the methodological quality of quantitative (RCTs, non-randomized studies), qualitative, and mixed-methods studies. Unlike tools designed for single paradigms (e.g., Cochrane RoB 2 for RCTs), MMAT provides unified criteria applicable across diverse research methodologies, making it particularly useful for systematic reviews incorporating multiple study designs. | RoB 2 is the Cochrane Collaboration's updated methodology for assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Published in 2019, it replaced the original Cochrane RoB tool with a more structured, transparent approach using signalling questions and domain-based judgments to evaluate five critical sources of bias. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|