Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography

Clicks: 1
ID: 292143
2007
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #111 of 133 articles by views in International Journal of Epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 133 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background Assessing quality and susceptibility to bias is essential when interpreting primary research and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Tools for assessing quality in clinical trials are well-described but much less attention has been given to similar tools for observational epidemiological studies. Methods Tools were identified from a search of three electronic databases, bibliographies and an Internet search using Google®. Two reviewers extracted data using a pre-piloted extraction form and strict inclusion criteria. Tool content was evaluated for domains potentially related to bias and was informed by the STROBE guidelines for reporting observational epidemiological studies. Results A total of 86 tools were reviewed, comprising 41 simple checklists, 12 checklists with additional summary judgements and 33 scales. The number of items ranged from 3 to 36 (mean 13.7). One-third of tools were designed for single use in a specific review and one-third for critical appraisal. Half of the tools provided development details, although most were proposed for future use in other contexts. Most tools included items for selection methods (92%), measurement of study variables (86%), design-specific sources of bias (86%), control of confounding (78%) and use of statistics (78%); only 4% addressed conflict of interest. The distribution and weighting of domains across tools was variable and inconsistent. Conclusion A number of useful assessment tools have been identified by this report. Tools should be rigorously developed, evidence-based, valid, reliable and easy to use. There is a need to agree on critical elements for assessing susceptibility to bias in observational epidemiology and to develop appropriate evaluation tools.
Reference Key
openalex_W2171251365 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Saskia C. Sanderson, ID Tatt, Julian P. T. Higgins
Journal International Journal of Epidemiology
Year 2007
DOI
10.1093/ije/dym018
URL
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pdf/36/3/666/1846499/dym018.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.