%0 Journal Article %T Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review %+ Department of Statistics and Operations Research [Barcelone, Espagne] %+ Equipe 5 : METHODS - Méthodes de l’évaluation thérapeutique des maladies chroniques (CRESS - U1153) %+ Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5) %+ Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre [Barcelone, Espagne] %+ CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP) %+ Department of Psychology [Split, Croatie] %+ Centre d'épidémiologie Clinique [Hôtel-Dieu] %A Superchi, Cecilia %A Antonio González, José %A Solà, Ivan %A Cobo, Erik %A Hren, Darko %A Boutron, Isabelle %Z This project was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no 676207. %< avec comité de lecture %@ 1471-2288 %J BMC Medical Research Methodology %I BioMed Central %V 19 %N 1 %P 48 %8 2019-03-06 %D 2019 %R 10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x %M 30841850 %K Methods %K Peer review %K Quality control %K Report %K Systematic review %Z Life Sciences [q-bio]/BioengineeringJournal articles %X BACKGROUND:A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.METHODS:We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis.RESULTS:We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of 'quality'. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer's comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18).CONCLUSION:Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. %G English %2 https://inserm.hal.science/inserm-02309545/document %2 https://inserm.hal.science/inserm-02309545/file/s12874-019-0688-x.pdf %L inserm-02309545 %U https://inserm.hal.science/inserm-02309545 %~ INSERM %~ UNIV-PARIS5 %~ UNIV-PARIS7 %~ INRA %~ APHP %~ OPENAIRE %~ USPC %~ AGREENIUM %~ INRAE %~ UNIV-PARIS %~ UP-SANTE %~ CRESS