formative peer assessment in healthcare education programmes: protocol for a scoping review - collaborative learning tables

by:ITATOUCH     2020-03-23
formative peer assessment in healthcare education programmes: protocol for a scoping review  -  collaborative learning tables
In formative peer assessment, students give feedback and receive feedback from each other and expand their knowledge in a social context of interaction and collaboration.
Collaboration and communication skills are an important part of the ability of healthcare professionals and the provision of safe patient care.
Therefore, in the health care education of students, it is essential to support them in carrying out activities to develop these abilities.
The purpose of the scope review is to compile peer assessment studies proposed in the health care education programme, with a focus on formative assessments.
The results of the scope review will form the basis for the development and implementation of interventions, with a focus on collaborative learning and peer assessment in health care education programs.
Methods and analyses will be conducted using the framework proposed by Arksey & O'Malley and Levac et al for a scoping review.
The main research question is: how is the formative peer assessment intervention implemented in health care education?
Literature search will be conducted in peers
The cumulative index of database postgraduate studies, nursing and related health literature, educational research integrity and educational research centers for the period September-December 2018 were reviewed.
Additional searches will be made in Google Scholar
Search for reference lists containing studies and Libsearch to identify gray literature.
The two researchers will screen titles and summaries independently. Full-
Three researchers will screen text articles using chart form.
Critical assessment skills programmes will be used to conduct a rigorous assessment of studies that meet the inclusion criteria.
The flow chart will show the studies included and excluded.
Narrative Synthesis will be conducted using the thematic analysis presented by Braun and Clark.
The findings will be presented under the topic heading using a summary table.
To improve effectiveness, an overview of the initial results will be provided to health education programmes and stakeholders in health institutions.
Scope review does not require ethical and communication research ethics approval.
In formative peer assessment, students give feedback and receive feedback from each other and expand their knowledge in a social context of interaction and collaboration.
Collaboration and communication skills are an important part of the ability of healthcare professionals and the provision of safe patient care.
Therefore, in the health care education of students, it is essential to support them in carrying out activities to develop these abilities.
The purpose of the scope review is to compile peer assessment studies proposed in the health care education programme, with a focus on formative assessments.
The results of the scope review will form the basis for the development and implementation of interventions, with a focus on collaborative learning and peer assessment in health care education programs.
Methods and analyses will be conducted using the framework proposed by Arksey & O'Malley and Levac et al for a scoping review.
The main research question is: how is the formative peer assessment intervention implemented in health care education?
Literature search will be conducted in peers
The cumulative index of database postgraduate studies, nursing and related health literature, educational research integrity and educational research centers for the period September-December 2018 were reviewed.
Additional searches will be made in Google Scholar
Search for reference lists containing studies and Libsearch to identify gray literature.
The two researchers will screen titles and summaries independently. Full-
Three researchers will screen text articles using chart form.
Critical assessment skills programmes will be used to conduct a rigorous assessment of studies that meet the inclusion criteria.
The flow chart will show the studies included and excluded.
Narrative Synthesis will be conducted using the thematic analysis presented by Braun and Clark.
The findings will be presented under the topic heading using a summary table.
To improve effectiveness, an overview of the initial results will be provided to health education programmes and stakeholders in health institutions.
Scope review does not require ethical and communication research ethics approval.
Due to the student's ability to exercise feedback and receive feedback, the introduction of peer assessment is described as an important part of collaborative learning.
1 This supports students to gain insight and understanding of the assessment criteria and their personal approach to the assessment tasks reflected in their peers.
In addition, peer evaluation helps students to develop their ability to judge, criticize and self-awareness.
1 it can be defined as "an arrangement in which an individual considers the quantity, level, quality or success of a product or learning result of a peer of similar status "(
Toppings and Ehly, p118).
2 peer assessment is described in various situations for a variety of purposes, including measuring the professional ability of medical students, 3 as a strategy to improve students' participation in their own learning, 4 5. develop employment skills of higher education students. 6In a peer-
Assessment activities, the student is responsible for assessing the work of peers based on the set assessment criteria 1 and can be carried out as a summative or formative assessment.
The purpose of the summative evaluation is to score and evaluate the students' learning situation.
On the other hand, formative assessment focuses on the development of the student learning process.
In formative peer evaluation, the purpose is to help students help each other when planning to learn.
Students expand their knowledge in an interactive and collaborative social environment based on social constructivist principles.
In this social context, they discover their strengths and weaknesses and develop metacognitive, personal and professional skills.
It is natural dialogue, and the most basic thing is the use of feedback.
Feedback is an integral part of peer assessment designed to facilitate the learning of students.
13 The recent publication of the Higher Education Assessment Review 14 raised the question of the lack of accurate reference to the objectives of peer assessment in research on peer assessment and, in addition, the lack of empirical investigations.
Boud et al. 1 emphasized the importance of assessing the shift from a individualist assessment approach to peer assessment, if collaboration is to be promoted as reflected in collaborative learning models.
The ability to collaborate, communicate, evaluate, provide and receive feedback is an important part of the ability of healthcare professionals and the provision of safe patient care.
Therefore, in the health care education of students, it is essential to support them in carrying out activities to develop these abilities.
These competencies relate to the broader goals of professional teamwork and lifelong learning, as noted in the lecture course by Boud et al --
Otherwise it is not easy to set specific goals.
Therefore, the scope review of peer assessment in higher education will be an important guide before conducting an empirical survey focusing on peer assessment interventions in healthcare education programmes.
The methodological scope review aims to map concepts, key sources and evidence in specific research areas to gain a broader understanding of specific topic 15, which has become increasingly popular in health and social sciences in recent years.
The 16 scope review is usually conducted as a preliminary investigation process that helps researchers to develop research issues and develop research proposals and serves as a fundamental basis for curriculum development and Programme Implementation.
18 This scoping review will use the York approach of Arksey and o'malley15, taking into account the suggestions made by Levac et al.
19 conduct a scope review after six
Including :(1)
Identify research issues; (2)
Identify relevant studies; (3)
Research selection; (4)
Chart the data; (5)
Organize, summarize and report the results; and (6)consultation. 15 19 This six-
In conducting a system review, the stage process is associated with the process.
They all use strict and transparent methods to identify and analyze all relevant literature related to research issues.
20 The purpose of this scoping review is not to assess the quality and effectiveness of the study in order to integrate the best practice guidelines as in the systematic review.
Instead, it aims to understand the wider picture and highlight the latest efforts and key concepts of peer assessment as an integral part of higher education students.
Therefore, this scope review needs to include a wider range of methods and research designs than might be included in the system review, which typically focus on randomized controlled trials.
15 In addition, when a subject is complex or different in nature, the scope review can use 21 and is an important basis for curriculum development and Programme Implementation.
18. since the literature on peer assessment is extensive, somewhat ambiguous in terms of precise definitions, and carried out in different contexts of higher education, this approach seems appropriate to answer research questions.
In other words, peer assessments are multi-faceted, and scoping reviews may provide researchers with extensive and in-depth
Have a deep understanding of this particular subject.
The results of the report are critical to further develop interventions aimed at implementing and evaluating peer assessments as part of a collaborative learning approach for healthcare education programs.
Phase 1: identify research issues the purpose of this scope review is to compile studies on peer assessment in higher education with a focus on formative assessment.
The main research question is: how is the formative peer assessment intervention implemented in health care education?
Further questions to be answered are: What are the reasons for using formative peer assessments in health care education?
From the perspective of students and teachers, in health care education, what experience does formative peer assessment have and in what context (
(Such as clinical practice, pre-clinical and theoretical courses)?
What are the outcomes of formative peer assessment interventions?
Levac and others suggested a clear explanation of the research issues.
In a systematic review, the problem of guiding the search is often based on the "population intervention environmental outcomes" element.
Since the scoping review has fewer restrictive inclusion criteria than the system review, the "overall concept and context" element (table 1)
Can be used to establish effective search criteria.
22 View this table: View the inline View pop-up table 1 population concept and context mnemonic recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute stage 22 2: identify relevant research literature search
The cumulative index of database, postgraduate entrance examination, nursing and related health literature, completion of educational research and center of educational research are summarized.
Search tools such as medical topic titles, Thesaurus and Boolean operators (AND/OR)
Will be used to expand and narrow the search.
Additional searches will be made in Google Scholar
Search for Libsearch that contains a reference list of studies and identifies gray literature.
The search will take place between September and December 2018.
No restrictions will be set for the year of publication.
Finally, a search strategy will be developed in collaboration with research librarians who are proficient in the research database.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria will apply the following inclusion criteria in the search :(a)
The article must discuss peer evaluation in higher education; (b)
Formative peer evaluation; (c)
Students in health care education programs; (d)
Articles, Gray documents, books, etc. reviewed by peers; (e)
Study of quality assessment in medium or higher methods based on key assessment skill programmes (CASP).
23 initially, the search term will have a wide range of destinations (
Peer review, higher education)
To capture the scope of published literature.
However, the breadth of the material will determine whether a narrower inclusion standard is required for managing the material.
Due to the differences between different evaluation terms and how different authors define differences in peer evaluation, 14 similar concepts related to peer evaluation, such as peer feedback and peer evaluation, will be included in the search to ensure that no research is missed because of the ambiguity of the topic definition.
Unless the study involves formative assessment, articles including summative peer assessments will be excluded.
However, the difference between the two must be transparent if the study is to be included.
Research will be excluded if there is any uncertainty.
In addition, complete articles, summaries, meeting posters, or power point presentations that cannot be reviewed will be excluded.
Stage 3: preliminary study selection, with two members of the study group screening the title and summary.
At this stage, the team may need to discuss inclusion and exclusion criteria and improve the search.
If the topic is consistent with the purpose of the review, the summary will be read.
This procedure will be conducted separately by two researchers under the guidance of inclusion criteria and research issues.
In the event of any disagreement, a third research member will be consulted.
This initial step will determine whether the criteria include the relevant research.
In addition, all
Import text articles into web-
Based on the bibliography manager RefWorks 2.
0, to achieve the deletion of duplicates and organizational feasibility.
Each paper will be given a unique number to identify and track articles that are included and excluded.
Stage 4: drawing complete data
Three researchers will screen text articles independently.
Chart tables will be used to manage documents of data extracted from included studies.
The chart table will include inclusion criteria and an explanation of why this study is included or excluded at this stage of the process.
If there is any reservation or disagreement, a fourth researcher will be consulted until a consensus is reached.
Studies that meet the inclusion criteria will be rigorously evaluated using CASP.
23 when the 6-8 standard and the high 9-10 standard of the CASP checklist are met, the method quality will be scored by medium standard.
25 in order to enable others to replicate and improve the reliability of the findings and the accuracy of the methodology, the process will use systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
Introduced by Moher and others.
26 The PRISMA flow chart visualizes the selection process for articles included and excluded at each stage of the search process.
The PRISMA checklist will use 24 checklists to support the rigorous report of the review.
26 Phase V: will be collated, summarized and reported results collected and managed using the data analysis software program asivo V including the results of the article11.
Tivvo is the code
Systems that support structured qualitative data.
Although the analysis part of the data material needs to be abstracted by researchers, the software may support an overview of code, topics and their relationships and connections.
We will use the inductive method for narrative synthesis.
The thematic analysis principles proposed by Braun and Clarke will be used to analyze qualitative data.
28 subject analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns in data 28 with qualitative and quantitative methods.
It allows a lot of data and can highlight the differences and similarities between data sets.
The topic will be identified from the written text at the semantic level.
28 in order to maintain the quality and credibility of the data analysis, each phase will be presented in one scheme.
28 The survey results will be presented under the topic title using a summary table that can provide information for the description of key points.
In addition, a detailed form will be provided :(a)author(s), (b)
Geographical distribution of research ,(c)
Year of publication ,(d)
The proposed educational intervention measures ,(e)
The professional health care program mentioned in the study ,(f)
Experience, results and key results of the peer assessment initiatives reported, and (g)
Research Methods.
Stage 6: consultation is an optional stage.
However, as it increases methodological rigor, it will be included in the scope review.
Consultation will be conducted when preliminary results are organized in the form of charts (stage 5).
Stakeholders in the health care education program (
Students and teachers)
Medical institutions (preceptors)
An overview of the preliminary results will be provided.
The purpose of the consultation is to improve the effectiveness of the findings.
Phase 1: identify research issues the purpose of this scope review is to compile studies on peer assessment in higher education with a focus on formative assessment.
The main research question is: how is the formative peer assessment intervention implemented in health care education?
Further questions to be answered are: What are the reasons for using formative peer assessments in health care education?
From the perspective of students and teachers, in health care education, what experience does formative peer assessment have and in what context (
(Such as clinical practice, pre-clinical and theoretical courses)?
What are the outcomes of formative peer assessment interventions?
Levac and others suggested a clear explanation of the research issues.
In a systematic review, the problem of guiding the search is often based on the "population intervention environmental outcomes" element.
Since the scoping review has fewer restrictive inclusion criteria than the system review, the "overall concept and context" element (table 1)
Can be used to establish effective search criteria.
22 View this table: View the inline View pop-up table 1 population concept and context mnemonic recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute stage 22 2: identify relevant research literature search
The cumulative index of database, postgraduate entrance examination, nursing and related health literature, completion of educational research and center of educational research are summarized.
Search tools such as medical topic titles, Thesaurus and Boolean operators (AND/OR)
Will be used to expand and narrow the search.
Additional searches will be made in Google Scholar
Search for Libsearch that contains a reference list of studies and identifies gray literature.
The search will take place between September and December 2018.
No restrictions will be set for the year of publication.
Finally, a search strategy will be developed in collaboration with research librarians who are proficient in the research database.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria will apply the following inclusion criteria in the search :(a)
The article must discuss peer evaluation in higher education; (b)
Formative peer evaluation; (c)
Students in health care education programs; (d)
Articles, Gray documents, books, etc. reviewed by peers; (e)
Study of quality assessment in medium or higher methods based on key assessment skill programmes (CASP).
23 initially, the search term will have a wide range of destinations (
Peer review, higher education)
To capture the scope of published literature.
However, the breadth of the material will determine whether a narrower inclusion standard is required for managing the material.
Due to the differences between different evaluation terms and how different authors define differences in peer evaluation, 14 similar concepts related to peer evaluation, such as peer feedback and peer evaluation, will be included in the search to ensure that no research is missed because of the ambiguity of the topic definition.
Unless the study involves formative assessment, articles including summative peer assessments will be excluded.
However, the difference between the two must be transparent if the study is to be included.
Research will be excluded if there is any uncertainty.
In addition, complete articles, summaries, meeting posters, or power point presentations that cannot be reviewed will be excluded.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria will apply the following inclusion criteria in the search :(a)
The article must discuss peer evaluation in higher education; (b)
Formative peer evaluation; (c)
Students in health care education programs; (d)
Articles, Gray documents, books, etc. reviewed by peers; (e)
Study of quality assessment in medium or higher methods based on key assessment skill programmes (CASP).
23 initially, the search term will have a wide range of destinations (
Peer review, higher education)
To capture the scope of published literature.
However, the breadth of the material will determine whether a narrower inclusion standard is required for managing the material.
Due to the differences between different evaluation terms and how different authors define differences in peer evaluation, 14 similar concepts related to peer evaluation, such as peer feedback and peer evaluation, will be included in the search to ensure that no research is missed because of the ambiguity of the topic definition.
Unless the study involves formative assessment, articles including summative peer assessments will be excluded.
However, the difference between the two must be transparent if the study is to be included.
Research will be excluded if there is any uncertainty.
In addition, complete articles, summaries, meeting posters, or power point presentations that cannot be reviewed will be excluded.
Stage 3: preliminary study selection, with two members of the study group screening the title and summary.
At this stage, the team may need to discuss inclusion and exclusion criteria and improve the search.
If the topic is consistent with the purpose of the review, the summary will be read.
This procedure will be conducted separately by two researchers under the guidance of inclusion criteria and research issues.
In the event of any disagreement, a third research member will be consulted.
This initial step will determine whether the criteria include the relevant research.
In addition, all
Import text articles into web-
Based on the bibliography manager RefWorks 2.
0, to achieve the deletion of duplicates and organizational feasibility.
Each paper will be given a unique number to identify and track articles that are included and excluded.
Stage 4: drawing complete data
Three researchers will screen text articles independently.
Chart tables will be used to manage documents of data extracted from included studies.
The chart table will include inclusion criteria and an explanation of why this study is included or excluded at this stage of the process.
If there is any reservation or disagreement, a fourth researcher will be consulted until a consensus is reached.
Studies that meet the inclusion criteria will be rigorously evaluated using CASP.
23 when the 6-8 standard and the high 9-10 standard of the CASP checklist are met, the method quality will be scored by medium standard.
25 in order to enable others to replicate and improve the reliability of the findings and the accuracy of the methodology, the process will use systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
Introduced by Moher and others.
26 The PRISMA flow chart visualizes the selection process for articles included and excluded at each stage of the search process.
The PRISMA checklist will use 24 checklists to support the rigorous report of the review.
26 Phase V: will be collated, summarized and reported results collected and managed using the data analysis software program asivo V including the results of the article11.
Tivvo is the code
Systems that support structured qualitative data.
Although the analysis part of the data material needs to be abstracted by researchers, the software may support an overview of code, topics and their relationships and connections.
We will use the inductive method for narrative synthesis.
The thematic analysis principles proposed by Braun and Clarke will be used to analyze qualitative data.
28 subject analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns in data 28 with qualitative and quantitative methods.
It allows a lot of data and can highlight the differences and similarities between data sets.
The topic will be identified from the written text at the semantic level.
28 in order to maintain the quality and credibility of the data analysis, each phase will be presented in one scheme.
28 The survey results will be presented under the topic title using a summary table that can provide information for the description of key points.
In addition, a detailed form will be provided :(a)author(s), (b)
Geographical distribution of research ,(c)
Year of publication ,(d)
The proposed educational intervention measures ,(e)
The professional health care program mentioned in the study ,(f)
Experience, results and key results of the peer assessment initiatives reported, and (g)
Research Methods.
Stage 6: consultation is an optional stage.
However, as it increases methodological rigor, it will be included in the scope review.
Consultation will be conducted when preliminary results are organized in the form of charts (stage 5).
Stakeholders in the health care education program (
Students and teachers)
Medical institutions (preceptors)
An overview of the preliminary results will be provided.
The purpose of the consultation is to improve the effectiveness of the findings.
Only morality and dissemination of information are extracted from public databases.
The results of this scoping agreement will serve as the basis for conducting a scoping review of formative peer assessments in health care education programs.
These results will be published at national and international conferences and in their peers
Review journals. References1.
Cohen R. Samson J.
Peer Learning and Evaluation.
Evaluation and evaluation of higher education 199924:413–26. doi:10.
1080/0260293990240405 OpenUrlCrossRef2.
More than KJ, Ehly SW.
Peer-assisted learning: a consulting framework.
Journal of Education and psychological counseling 2001; 12:113–32. doi:10.
1207/s1532768xjepc1202_03openurlcross Web Science3.
Dandannefer EF, Henson LC, Bierer SB, etc.
Peer Assessment of professional competence. Med Educ 2005; 39:713–22. doi:10. 1111/j. 1365-2929. 2005. 02193.
Xopenurlcross Web Science4.
Kathy D. , Burke E. , Holden C. , et al.
Peer assessment is used as a student engagement strategy in nurse education.
Nurs health Sci 2011; 13:514–20. doi:10. 1111/j. 1442-2018. 2011. 00637. Xopenurlpubmed5.
Merry orsmond * P, Merry, Callahan.
Implement formative assessment models that include peer and self-assessment.
International Innovation in education and teaching 2004; 41:273–90. doi:10.
OpenUrl6 1080/14703290410001733294. ↵Cassidy S.
Developing employment skills: peer assessment in higher education.
2006 education and training; 48:508–17. doi:10.
1108/00400910610705890 OpenUrl7.
Wiliam D. Black P.
Evaluation and classroom learning.
Education Assessment: principles, policies and practices 1998; 5:7–74. doi:10.
1080/0969595980050102 OpenUrlCrossRef8. ↵Sadler DR.
Beyond feedback: develop students' abilities in complex assessments.
Evaluation and evaluation of Higher Education 201035:535–50. doi:10.
1080/02602930903541015 OpenUrlCrossRef9. ↵Topping KJ.
Peer Assessment.
Theory Pract 2009; 48:20–7. doi:10.
1080/00405840802577569 OpenUrl10.
This is Walker.
Practical Guide for teaching, training and learning. 6th edn.
Sunderland: Business Education Press, 2007. 11. ↵Olusegun S.
Constructivist Learning Theory: the paradigm of teaching and learning.
Journal of Educational Research and Methods 2015; 56:66–70. OpenUrl12.
Hashastie C, Fahy K, Parratt J.
Developed a title for peer assessment of individual teamwork skills for undergraduate midwife students.
Women giving birth 201427:220–6. doi:10. 1016/j. wombi. 2014. 06. 003OpenUrl13.
McFarlane Dick D Nicole DJ
Formative evaluation and autonomous learning: The model and seven principles of good feedback practice.
Research on Higher Education in 2006; 31:199–218. doi:10.
1080/03075070600572090 OpenUrlCrossRef14.
Pierce J. Radlov A. Daniels e. Collegeet al.
Evaluation and feedback of higher education.
Literature Review of colleges of higher education.
In: Jackie B. , Pierce J. , Radlov A. , Daniels E. eds.
2017. Transforming teaching and inspiring learning. 15.
O'Malley L. H.
Definition of the scope of the study: the establishment of a methodological framework.
Res Int J Soc Methodol 2005; 8:19–32. doi:10.
1080/1364557032000119616 openurlcross ref16.
Ppham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, etc.
Scope review of scope review: advancing methodology and improving consistency.
Res synthesis method 2014. 5:371–85. doi:10. 1002/jrsm.
1123openurlcrossrefubmed17.
Davis K. , Drury N. , Gould D.
What is the scope study?
Review of nursing literature.
Int J Nurs Stud 2009; 46:1386–400. doi:10. 1016/j. ijnurstu. 2009. 02.
010openurlcrossrefubmed18.
Kurtz D. grera O.
Building cooperation: a scope review of cultural competence and safety education and training for health care students and professionals in Canada.
Teaching Mediterranean 2017; 29:129–42. doi:10. 1080/10401334. 2016.
1234960OpenUrl19.
Collevac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK.
Scope of Study: advancing methodology.
Implement Sci 2010; 5:69. doi:10. 1186/1748-5908-5-
69 openurlcrossrefubmed20.
Martin Dickson
Kobe Mina
Lukosius D.
Advanced Practical Care in Canada: a comprehensive overview of decision support.
Nurs Leadersh 2010; 23:15–34. doi:10. 12927/cjnl. 2010. 22267OpenUrl21.
Alan P. Clark A. Black N. Roberts E. Pope J. et al.
Comprehensive research evidence
In: Fulop N, Allen P, Clark A, Black N,eds.
Organization and delivery of research services: Research Methods.
London: 2001: 188-219. 22.
Joanna Briggs Institute
Handbook of reviewers at Joanna Briggs Institute 2015.
Methodology for JBI scope review.
South Australia: University of Adelaide, 2015. 23.
Key assessment skills program. CASP checklist. 2018. (
Visit August 5, 2018). 24.
Van Moser C Scott SJ.
Research methods to strengthen scope: a large, mutual
Professional team experience in Arksey and O'Malley framework.
BMC Medical Res methods 2013; 13:48. doi:10. 1186/1471-2288-13-
48 openurlcrossrefubmed25.
Horntvedt MT, Nordsteien A, Fermann T, etc.
Strategies for teaching evidence
Basic practice of nursing education: a review of thematic literature.
BMC Med Educ 2018; 18:172. doi:10. 1186/s12909-018-1278-zOpenUrl26.
Alimmoher D, the liberated man, tezlaff J, etc.
Preferred Reporting Items for system review and meta-
Analysis: PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e1000097. doi:10. 1371/journal. pmed.
201797openurlcross refpmed27.
Silver C, win.
A step in using software in qualitative researchby-step guide.
London: Sage Publishing, 200728.
Braun v Clark v.
Use subject analysis in psychology.
Psychology of Qual Res 2006; 3:77–101. doi:10.
1191/1478088706 qp063oa openurlcrossref29.
Pope C. Pope J.
Systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy
Made in the health field.
Health service policy 2005; 10(Suppl 1):6–20. doi:10.
1258/1355819054308576 openurlcrosspubmedfootnocontriators MS led the design, search strategy and conceptualisation of the work and drafted the agreement.
EM, MB and EC participated in the conceptual review of design, inclusion and exclusion criteria and provided feedback on methodology and manuscript.
All authors agreed to publish the manuscript of the agreement.
Funding authors have not announced specific funding for this study from any public, commercial or non-commercial funding agency --for-profit sectors.
No one declared a competitive interest.
Patient consent is not required.
Scope review does not require ethical approval for research ethics approval.
Uncommissioned source and peer review;
External peer review.
Custom message
Chat Online
Chat Online
Chat Online inputting...
Hi, Nice to meet you! I am temporarilly away a momnet, Please can you talk with me by Whatsapp: +86 13582949978 / Skype: eliahe123? Email: info@itatouch.com Thank you in advance! Sincerely, ITATOUCH Sales {{"url":"/about us","text":"Welcome to visit us!"}} Welcome! What can I do for you?
Sign in with: