The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.

@article{Downs1998TheFO,
  title={The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.},
  author={Sara H. Downs and Nick Black},
  journal={Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health},
  year={1998},
  volume={52},
  pages={377 - 384}
}
  • S. Downs, N. Black
  • Published 1 June 1998
  • Medicine
  • Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
OBJECTIVE To test the feasibility of creating a valid and reliable checklist with the following features: appropriate for assessing both randomised and non-randomised studies; provision of both an overall score for study quality and a profile of scores not only for the quality of reporting, internal validity (bias and confounding) and power, but also for external validity. [...] Key MethodDESIGN A pilot version was first developed, based on epidemiological principles, reviews, and existing checklists for…Expand
View on BMJ
jech.bmj.com
6,027 Citations
Highly Influential Citations
467
Background Citations
598
Methods Citations
1,791
Results Citations
30

6,027 Citations

Citation Type

Citation Type

A checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of validation studies on self-report instruments for physical activity and sedentary behavior.
TLDR
Checklists may be useful to assess the quality of studies designed to validate physical activity instruments and future research should test checklist internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity.
Development and validation of a quality appraisal tool for validity studies (QAVALS)
TLDR
QAVALS is the first quality appraisal tool specifically designed to address common types of validity and demonstrates strong content validity, good overall inter-rater and excellent test–retest reliability.
Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review
TLDR
A valid and reliable scale for the assessment of the methodological quality of physical therapy trials needs to be developed after it was found that the Jadad Scale presented the best validity and reliability evidence; however, its validity forPhysical therapy trials has not been supported.
Validity and Inter-Rater Reliability Testing of Quality Assessment Instruments
TLDR
Variable agreement for the NOS, and lack of evidence that it discriminates studies that may provide biased results, underscores the need for more detailed guidance to apply the tool in systematic reviews.
Development quality criteria to evaluate nontherapeutic studies of incidence, prevalence, or risk factors of chronic diseases: pilot study of new checklists.
TLDR
Two checklists for the quality of observational studies of incidence or risk factors of diseases are developed and a transparent and standardized quality assessment criteria is proposed for observational studies using the developed checklists.
Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement.
TLDR
Raters found the tool easy to use, and there was high interrater agreement: overall agreement was 91% and the Kappa statistic was 0.82, which was almost perfect for the individual items on the tool and moderate for the summary assessment.
Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity.
TLDR
RoBANS shows moderate reliability, promising feasibility, and validity, and the observed differences in effect sizes and funding sources among the assessed studies were not correlated with the overall risk of bias in these studies.
A new risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews was developed and validated to be used for systematic reviews focusing on drug adverse events.
TLDR
The developed checklist showed face and content validity and acceptable reliability to assess the risk of bias for studies analyzing drug adverse events and might be considered as a novel useful tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on drug safety.
Quality assessment for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies.
TLDR
This novel scale has favorable performance characteristics, is efficient to conduct, and easy to interpret and will be very helpful for physicians and researchers conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Assessing Features of Psychometric Assessment Instruments: A Comparison of the COSMIN Checklist with Other Critical Appraisal Tools
The past 20 years have seen the development of instruments designed to specify standards and evaluate the adequacy of published studies with respect to the quality of study design, the quality of…
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 38 REFERENCES
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.
TLDR
An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists developed to assess quality is presented, giving readers a quantitative index of the likelihood that the reported methodology and results are free of bias.
A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group.
A RANDOMIZED controlled trial (RCT) is the most reliable method of assessing the efficacy of health care interventions.1,2Reports of RCTs should provide readers with adequate information about what…
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.
TLDR
Empirical evidence is provided that inadequate methodological approaches in controlled trials, particularly those representing poor allocation concealment, are associated with bias.
How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical.
TLDR
Any evaluation of an innovation may include both bias and the true efficacy of the new therapy, therefore any evaluation of a new therapy may consider making adjustments for the average bias associated with a study design.
Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.
TLDR
It is concluded that an urgent need exists for improved methods in literature searching, quality evaluation of trials, and synthesizing of the results.
The effectiveness of surgery for stress incontinence in women: a systematic review.
TLDR
There is an urgent need for some large, rigorous, prospective studies of high quality evaluating surgery for stress incontinence, the effectiveness of different procedures and the frequency of complications associated with each procedure.
Assessing Reports of Therapeutic Trials
TLDR
A check list is described which helps the systematic assessment of reports of therapeutic trials, particularly the aspects that need to be considered in assessing their validity, and has been found useful in assessing claims made for drugs and other therapeutic measures on the basis of published reports.
Reporting on methods in clinical trials.
TLDR
Survey of clinical trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the British Medical Journal found information about statistical analyses, statistical methods used, and random allocation of subjects was reported, yet only 19 per cent reported the method of randomization.
Sociodemographic and motivational characteristics of parents who volunteer their children for clinical research: a controlled study.
TLDR
Volunteering parents had less social support, and they displayed greater health seeking behaviour and consumed more habit forming substances.
Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies.
TLDR
Examination of the use of the check lists showed that most papers contained statistical failings, many of which could easily be remedied.
...
1
2
3
4
...