Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 8 , Pages 765-769 , August 2006

Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews

,Accepted 12 December 2005.

References 

  1. Guyatt G, Sackett D, Sinclair J, Hayward R, Cook D, Cook R. Users guide to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA. 1995;274:1800–1804
  2. Moher D, Jadad A, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trial: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clin Trials. 1995;16:62–73
  3. Verhagen A, de Vit H, de Bie R, Boers M, van den Brandt P. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:651–654
  4. Verhagen A, de Vet H, de Bie R, Kessels A, Boers M, Bouter L, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomised clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1235–1241
  5. Sindhu F, Carpenter L, Seers K. Development of a tool to rate the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials using a Delphi technique. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25:1262–1268
  6. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Bossuyt P, Kleijen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25
  7. In:  Egger M,  Davey Smith G,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews in healthcare: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed.. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001;
  8. Lohr K, Carey T. Assessing best evidence: issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. Joint Commission J Qual Improve. 1999;25:470–479
  9. West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence report/technology assessment No. 47 (prepared by the Research Triangle Institute–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011). AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002;
  10. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomised studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. Aust N Z J Surg. 2003;73:712–716
  11. Downs S, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies in health care intervention. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–384
  12. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054–1060
  13. Pocock S, Collier T, Dandreo K, de Stavola B, Gadman M, Kalish L, et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of current practice. Br Med J. 2004;329:883
  14. Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D for the CONSORT group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reporting of parallel group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191–1194
  15. Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D for the QUORUM group. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials; the QUORUM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–1900
  16. Des Jarlais D, Lyles C, Crepaz N, the TREND group . Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomised evaluations of behavioural and public health interventions: The TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:361–366
  17. Bossuyt P, Reitsma J, Bruns D, Gatsonis C, Glasziou P, Irwig L, et al. The STARD statement for improving the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7–18
  18. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and the quality of reports of randomised trials. A comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285:1992–1995
  19. Bracken M. Reporting observational studies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96:383–388
  20. Squires B, Elmslie T. Reports of case–control studies: what editors want from authors and peer reviewers. Can Med Assoc J. 1990;143:17–18
  21. Squires B, Elmslie T. Cohort studies: what editors want from authors and peer reviewers. Can Med Assoc J. 1990;143:179–180
  22. Silman A, Symmons D. Reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:481–483

PII: S0895-4356(06)00026-6

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.010

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 8 , Pages 765-769 , August 2006

Article Tools