No clear choice between NOS and AXIS to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality-of-life and breast cancer.
Clicks: 346
ID: 72385
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Improving Quality
0.0
/100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
74.9
/100
333 views
272 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Abstract
To compare the inter-rater reliability, concurrent validity, completion time, and ease of use of two methodological quality (MQ) assessment tools for cross-sectional studies: an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS).Two raters applied the NOS and AXIS to 63 cross-sectional studies of health-related quality-of-life and breast cancer.AXIS demonstrated poor inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.49) and required more than double the amount of time to complete compared to the NOS, which demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = 0.73). For concurrent validity, weak and moderate positive relationships existed between NOS and AXIS (rater 1: r = 0.26; rater 2: r = 0.45). Ease of using the tools was affected by the indirectness of MQ assessments, perceived thoroughness of the tools' content, and user experience.This study was the first to assess the psychometric properties of a cross-sectional NOS and AXIS. The results did not support a clear choice between selecting either tool for evaluating MQ in cross-sectional studies.
| Reference Key |
moskalewicz2019nojournal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Moskalewicz, Alexandra;Oremus, Mark; |
| Journal | journal of clinical epidemiology |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
S0895-4356(19)30691-2
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
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.