The MethodologicAl STandards for Epidemiological Research (MASTER) scale demonstrated a unified framework for bias assessment



      This paper presents a unified framework for assessment of the methodological quality of analytic study designs.

      Study Design and Setting

      A systematic review of 393 methodological quality assessment tools that updated a previous assessment with 100 tools. Tool items were extracted, examined and reworded. Bias domains and finally methodological standards to be fulfilled were defined.


      There were 36 unique methodological safeguards that were categorized into seven methodological standards to be fulfilled in the MASTER scale. These methodological standards reflect initial and ongoing equivalence in particular areas, including equal recruitment, equal retention, equal ascertainment, equal implementation, equal prognosis, sufficient analysis, and temporal precedence.


      This approach unifies existing methods for methodological quality assessment and will be useful for (1) clinical researchers when a bias assessment of clinical research studies is required across analytical designs, (2) promoting a unified framework for bias assessment.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment


        • Maldonado G
        • Greenland S.
        Estimating causal effects.
        Int J Epidemiol. 2002; 31: 422-429
      1. Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Langley GRJCMAJ. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice & teach EBM. 1997;157:788.

        • Moher D
        • Jadad AR
        • Nichol G
        • Penman M
        • Tugwell P
        • Walsh S.
        Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.
        Control Clin Trials. 1995; 16: 62-73
        • Feinstein XLVIII, AR
        Efficacy of different research structures in preventing bias in the analysis of causation.
        Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979; 26: 129-141
        • Stone JC
        • Glass K
        • Clark J
        • Munn Z
        • Tugwell P
        • Doi SAR.
        A unified framework for bias assessment in clinical research.
        Int J Evid Based Healthcare. 2019; 17: 106-120
        • Chivese T
        • Musa OAH
        • Hindy G
        • Wattary N
        • Badran S
        • Soliman N
        • et al.
        A meta-review of systematic reviews and an updated meta-analysis on the efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID19 infection.
        medRxiv. 2020; (2020.07.28.20164012)
        • Doi SAR
        • Furuya-Kanamori L
        • Toft E
        • Musa OAH
        • Islam N
        • Clark J
        • et al.
        Metformin in pregnancy to avert gestational diabetes in women at high risk: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        Obes Rev. 2020; 21: e12964
        • Steineck G
        • Ahlbom A.
        A definition of bias founded on the concept of the study base.
        Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 1992; 3: 477-482
        • Doi SA
        Understanding evidence in health care using clinical epidemiology.
        Palgrave Macmillan, South Yarra, Australia2012
        • Schwartz S
        • Campbell UB
        • Gatto NM
        • Gordon K.
        Toward a clarification of the taxonomy of "bias" in epidemiology textbooks.
        Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 2015; 26: 216-222
        • Stone JC
        • Doi SAR.
        Moving towards a standards-based methodological quality assessment scheme for clinical research.
        Int J Evid Based Healthcare. 2019; 17: 72-73
        • 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
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Fuentes J
        • Ospina M
        • Saltaji H
        • Hartling L.
        Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis.
        BMC Med Res Method. 2013; 13: 116
        • 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
        • Sterne JAC
        • Savovic J
        • Page MJ
        • Elbers RG
        • Blencowe NS
        • Boutron I
        • et al.
        RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
        BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898
        • Higgins JPT
        • Green S
        Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011].
        The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
        • Bero L
        • Chartres N
        • Diong J
        • Fabbri A
        • Ghersi D
        • Lam J
        • et al.
        The risk of bias in observational studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool: concerns arising from application to observational studies of exposures.
        Syst Rev. 2018; 7: 242
        • Thomson H
        • Craig P
        • Hilton-Boon M
        • Campbell M
        • Katikireddi SV.
        Applying the ROBINS-I tool to natural experiments: an example from public health.
        Syst Rev. 2018; 7: 15
        • Morgan RL
        • Thayer KA
        • Santesso N
        • Holloway AC
        • Blain R
        • Eftim SE
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and the ‘target experiment’ concept in studies of exposures: Rationale and preliminary instrument development.
        Environ Int. 2018; 120: 382-387
        • Jeyaraman MM
        • Al-Yousif N
        • Robson RC
        • Copstein L
        • Balijepalli C
        • Hofer K
        • et al.
        Inter-rater reliability and validity of risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: a study protocol.
        Syst Rev. 2020; 9: 32
        • Hernan MA
        • Robins JM.
        Causal inference: what if?.
        CRC Press, 2020
        • Stone JC
        • Gurunathan U
        • Aromataris E
        • Glass K
        • Tugwell P
        • Munn Z
        • et al.
        Risk of bias assessment in outcomes research: the role of relative versus absolute approaches.
        Value Health. 2020; (In Press)
        • Stone JC
        • Glass K
        • Munn Z
        • Tugwell P
        • Doi SAR.
        Comparison of bias adjustment methods in meta-analysis suggests that quality effects modeling may have less limitations than other approaches.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 117: 36-45
        • Sterne JA
        • Hernan MA
        • Reeves BC
        • Savović J
        • Berkman ND
        • Viswanathan M
        • et al.
        ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.
        BMJ. 2016; 355: i4919