Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
TLDR
This review introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial, animal study, non-randomized interventional studies, qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline.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.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
The mental health of healthcare workers in the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.
Maryam Vizheh,Mostafa Qorbani,Seyed Masoud Arzaghi,Salut Muhidin,Zohreh Javanmard,Marzieh Esmaeili +5 more
TL;DR: All research carried out on the mental health status of health care workers (HCWs) to bring policymakers and managers’ attention is reviewed to recommend the supportive, encouragement & motivational, protective, and training & educational interventions.
Journal ArticleDOI
Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Nicole Ngai Yung Tsang,Hau Chi So,Ka Yan Ng,Benjamin J. Cowling,Gabriel M. Leung,Dennis K. M. Ip +5 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear, and a systematic review and meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of various clinical specimen collection methods.
Journal ArticleDOI
Clinical determinants of the severity of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identified the possible risk factors responsible for severe cases in confirmed COVID-19 patients and found that patients with severe conditions had a higher rate of comorbidities and complications than patients with non-severe conditions.
Journal ArticleDOI
Chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management of COVID-19: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline (updated version)
Ying-Hui Jin,Qing-Yuan Zhan,Zhi-Yong Peng,Xue-Qun Ren,Xun-Tao Yin,Lin Cai,Yu-Feng Yuan,Ji-Rong Yue,Xiaochun Zhang,Qi-Wen Yang,Jianguang Ji,Jian Xia,Yi-Rong Li,Fu-Xiang Zhou,Ya-Dong Gao,Zhui Yu,Feng Xu,Ming-Li Tu,Li-Ming Tan,Min Yang,Fang Chen,Xiao-Ju Zhang,Mei Zeng,Yu Zhu,Xin-Can Liu,Jian Yang,Dong-Chi Zhao,Yu-Feng Ding,Ning Hou,Fu-Bing Wang,Hao Chen,Yonggang Zhang,Wei Li,Wen Chen,Yue-Xian Shi,Xiu-Zhi Yang,Xuejun Wang,Yan-Jun Zhong,Ming-Juan Zhao,Bing-Hui Li,Bing-Hui Li,Lin-Lu Ma,Hao Zi,Hao Zi,Na Wang,Yun-Yun Wang,Shao-Fu Yu,Lu-Yao Li,Lu-Yao Li,Qiao Huang,Hong Weng,Xiang-Ying Ren,Xiang-Ying Ren,Li-Sha Luo,Man-Ru Fan,Di Huang,Hong-Yang Xue,Lin-Xin Yu,Jin-Ping Gao,Jin-Ping Gao,Tong Deng,Tong Deng,Xian-Tao Zeng,Hong-Jun Li,Zhen-Shun Cheng,Xiaomei Yao,Xinghuan Wang +66 more
TL;DR: A working group of clinical experts and methodologists searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of COVID-19, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Julian P T Higgins,Douglas G. Altman,Peter C Gøtzsche,Peter Jüni,David Moher,Andrew D Oxman,Jelena Savović,Kenneth F. Schulz,Laura Weeks,Jonathan A C Sterne +9 more
TL;DR: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate.
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses
TL;DR: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) as discussed by the authors was developed to assess the quality of nonrandomised studies with its design, content and ease of use directed to the task of incorporating the quality assessments in the interpretation of meta-analytic results.
Journal ArticleDOI
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials : is blinding necessary?
Alejandro R. Jadad,R. A. Moore,Dawn Carroll,C. Jenkinson,David Reynolds,David J. Gavaghan,Henry J McQuay +6 more
TL;DR: An instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research is described and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality is described.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies
Erik von Elm,Douglas G. Altman,Matthias Egger,Matthias Egger,Stuart J. Pocock,Peter C Gøtzsche,Jan P. Vandenbroucke +6 more
TL;DR: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study, resulting in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.
Related Papers (5)
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Matthew J. Page,Joanne E. McKenzie,Patrick M.M. Bossuyt,Isabelle Boutron,Tammy Hoffmann,Cynthia D. Mulrow,Larissa Shamseer,Jennifer Tetzlaff,Elie A. Akl,Sue E. Brennan,Roger Chou,Julie Glanville,Jeremy M. Grimshaw,Asbjørn Hróbjartsson,Manoj M. Lalu,Tianjing Li,Elizabeth Loder,Evan Mayo-Wilson,Steve McDonald,Luke A McGuinness,Lesley A. Stewart,James Thomas,Andrea C. Tricco,Vivian Welch,Penny Whiting,David Moher +25 more