Fowler's Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine Current Therapy, Volume 9 2019
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-323-55228-8.00011-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Research Study Design

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First of all, the present study had a cross-sectional design: by definition, cross-sectional studies have no dimension of time, so they cannot support conclusions on the risk factors of the targeted outcome, nor on causal relationships [ 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 ]. Without a well-defined dimension of time, cross-sectional studies can be poorly suited for examining conditions of short duration [ 92 , 93 , 94 ]: from this point of view, a cross-sectional design may be well suited for studying the acceptance of vaccine interventions [ 65 , 95 ], as the research would inquire about the overall status of the targeted individuals before the intervention [ 83 , 96 , 97 ], while retrieved information on infectious diseases and associated risk factors should be more cautiously assessed [ 94 , 95 , 98 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First of all, the present study had a cross-sectional design: by definition, cross-sectional studies have no dimension of time, so they cannot support conclusions on the risk factors of the targeted outcome, nor on causal relationships [ 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 ]. Without a well-defined dimension of time, cross-sectional studies can be poorly suited for examining conditions of short duration [ 92 , 93 , 94 ]: from this point of view, a cross-sectional design may be well suited for studying the acceptance of vaccine interventions [ 65 , 95 ], as the research would inquire about the overall status of the targeted individuals before the intervention [ 83 , 96 , 97 ], while retrieved information on infectious diseases and associated risk factors should be more cautiously assessed [ 94 , 95 , 98 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Risk of bias assessments identified several major weaknesses in existing SPMs for patients with pain conditions. In total, 75% of the SPM studies used cross-sectional designs, which lack temporality between exposures or predictors and outcomes [ 66 ]. For example, Sun’s study did not clearly specify measuring risk factors before suicide-related outcomes [ 20 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A cross-sectional design may be considered as well suited for studying the acceptance of interventions where the outcome variable (e.g., vaccination status) is only partially limited by time [98,99], while potential explanatory variables pre-exist the delivery of that intervention [100][101][102]. In this case, not only are we unable to actually discriminate between participants having obtained their actual understanding of N 2 O poisoning by formal education, medical education, or personal experience, but we should also stress that a significant role was possibly played by a factor quite difficult to ascertain, such as media coverage at the time of the survey [42,98,103,104]. Uncontrolled media claims about a misunderstood topic such as a N 2 O could possibly contribute to the knowledge gap and misunderstanding associated with the false belief of being "informed" about that topic, and a similar phenomenon has been described in previous KAP studies about the medical workforce [42,46,99,105].…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 94%