Dataset Information

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

ABSTRACT: Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient - reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.

SUBMITTER: Ma LL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7049186 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

Ma Lin-Lu LL Wang Yun-Yun YY Yang Zhi-Hua ZH Huang Di D Weng Hong H Zeng Xian-Tao XT

Military Medical Research 20200229 1

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, unco ...[more]

PMID: 32111253

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDietary exposure assessments are a critical issue in evaluating human nutrition studies; however, nutrition-specific criteria are not consistently included in existing bias assessment tools.ObjectivesOur objective was to develop a set of risk of bias (RoB) tools that integrated nutrition-specific criteria into validated generic assessment tools to address RoB issues, including those specific to dietary exposure assessment.MethodsThe Nutrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools (NUQUEST) development and validation process included 8 steps. The first steps identified 1) a development strategy; 2) generic assessment tools with demonstrated validity; and 3) nutrition-specific appraisal issues. This was followed by 4) generation of nutrition-specific items and 5) development of guidance to aid users of NUQUEST. The final steps used established ratings of selected studies and feedback from independent raters to 6) assess reliability and validity; 7) assess formatting and usability; and 8) finalize NUQUEST.ResultsNUQUEST is based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies. Using a purposive sample of 45 studies representing the 3 study designs, interrater reliability was high (Cohen's κ: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.93) across all tools and at least moderate for individual tools (range: 0.57-1.00). The use of a worksheet improved usability and consistency of overall interrater agreement across all study designs (40% without worksheet, 80%-100% with worksheet). When compared to published ratings, NUQUEST ratings for evaluated studies demonstrated high concurrent validity (93% perfect or near-perfect agreement). Where there was disagreement, the nutrition-specific component was a contributing factor in discerning exposure methodological issues.ConclusionsNUQUEST integrates nutrition-specific criteria with generic criteria from assessment tools with demonstrated reliability and validity. NUQUEST represents a consistent and transparent approach for evaluating RoB issues related to dietary exposure assessment commonly encountered in human nutrition studies.

Project description:BackgroundObstetrics and gynaecology have seen rapid growth in the development of new tests with research on these tests presented as diagnostic accuracy studies. To avoid errors in judgement it is important that the methodology of these studies is such that bias is minimised. Our objective was to determine the methodological quality of test accuracy studies in obstetrics and gynaecology using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist and to assess sources of bias.MethodsA prospective protocol was developed to assess the impact of QUADAS on ten systematic reviews performed over the period 2004-2007.We investigated whether there was an improvement in study quality since the introduction of QUADAS, whether a correlation existed between study sample size, country of origin of study and its quality. We also investigated whether there was a correlation between reporting and methodological quality and by the use of meta-regression analyses explored for items of quality that were associated with bias.ResultsA total of 300 studies were included. The overall quality of included studies was poor (> 50% compliance with 57.1% of quality items). However, the mean compliance with QUADAS showed an improvement post-publication of QUADAS (54.9% versus 61.4% p = 0.002). There was no correlation with study sample size. Gynaecology studies published from the United States of America showed higher quality (USA versus Western Europe p = 0.002; USA versus Asia p = 0.004). Meta-regression analysis showed that no individual quality item had a significant impact on accuracy. There was an association between reporting and methodological quality (r = 0.51 p < 0.0001 for obstetrics and r = 0.56 p < 0.0001 for gynaecology).ConclusionsA combination of poor methodological quality and poor reporting affects the inferences that can be drawn from test accuracy studies. Further compliance with quality checklists is required to ensure that bias is minimised.

Project description:Objectives: Rupture of a brain arteriovenous malformation (bAVM) can cause intracranial hemorrhage and severe clinical outcomes. At present, the mechanisms of bAVM-related hemorrhage are poorly understood. This study aimed to summarize the potential genetic risk factors for bAVM-related hemorrhage and appraise the methodological quality of existing genetic studies on bAVM-related hemorrhage using a cross-sectional design. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on genetic studies associated with bAVM-related hemorrhage published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Internet, and Wangfang databases, up to November 2022. Subsequently, a cross-sectional study was performed to describe the potential candidate genetic variants of bAVM associated with risk of hemorrhage and to evaluate the methodological quality of the identified studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale and Q-genie tool. Results: Of the 1811 records identified in the initial search, nine studies met the filtering criteria and were included. Twelve single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), including IL6 rs1800795, IL17A rs2275913, MMP9 rs9509, VEGFA rs1547651, and EPHB4 rs314353, rs314308, and rs314313, were associated with bAVM-related hemorrhage. However, only 12.5% of the evaluated SNPs showed statistical power> 0.80 (α = 0.05). Methodological quality assessment revealed significant flaws in the designs of the included studies, such as less reliable representativeness of recruited individuals, short follow-up periods in cohort studies, and less comparability between groups of hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic patients. Conclusion: IL1B, IL6, IL17A, APOE, MMP9, VEGFA and EPHB4 were potentially associated with bAVM-related hemorrhage. The methodological designs of the analyzed studies required improvement in order to obtain more reliable results. Regional alliances and rare disease banks need to be established to recruit large numbers of bAVM patients (especially familial and extreme-trait cases) in a multicenter, prospective cohort study with an adequate follow-up period. Furthermore, it is important to use advanced sequencing techniques and efficient measures to filter candidate genetic variants.

Dataset Information

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

Publications

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets