Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 10 , Pages 1059-1060 , October 2010

The Catch-22 of appraisals on the quality of observational studies

  • R.H.H. Groenwold

      Affiliations

    • Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Stratenum 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
    • Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacotherapy, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +31-88-756-8214; fax: +31-88-756-8099.
    • ,
  • M.M. Rovers

      Affiliations

    • Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Stratenum 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
    • Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

,Accepted 24 April 2010.

References 

  1. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344–349
  2. Vandenbroucke JP. The making of STROBE. Epidemiology. 2007;18:797–799
  3. Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Dickinson S. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1061–1070
  4. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88:156–175
  5. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12
  6. Groenwold RH, van Deursen AM, Hoes AW, Hak E. Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review. Ann Epidemiol. 2008;18:746–751
  7. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36:666–676
  8. Kane RL, Wang J, Garrard J. Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:241–249
  9. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L CONSORT group. Use of CONSORT statement and the quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285:1992–1995

 Conflict of interest: The division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacotherapy employing author R.H.H.G. has received unrestricted funding for pharmacoepidemiological research from GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, the private–public-funded Top Institute Pharma (www.tipharma.nl, includes cofunding from universities, government, and industry), the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board, and the Dutch Ministry of Health.

 Abbreviations: CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; STROBE, Strengthening the reporting of observational epidemiology; STARD, Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses.

PII: S0895-4356(10)00175-7

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.013

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 10 , Pages 1059-1060 , October 2010

Article Tools