Cargando…

Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)

In this letter, we briefly describe how we selected and implemented the quality criteria checklist (QCC) as a critical appraisal tool in rapid systematic reviews conducted to inform public health advice, guidance and policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. As these rapid reviews usually included a rang...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duval, Daphne, Pearce-Smith, Nicola, Palmer, Jennifer C., Sarfo-Annin, Jason Kwasi, Rudd, Paul, Clark, Rachel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36973811
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02219-z
_version_ 1784912926016012288
author Duval, Daphne
Pearce-Smith, Nicola
Palmer, Jennifer C.
Sarfo-Annin, Jason Kwasi
Rudd, Paul
Clark, Rachel
author_facet Duval, Daphne
Pearce-Smith, Nicola
Palmer, Jennifer C.
Sarfo-Annin, Jason Kwasi
Rudd, Paul
Clark, Rachel
author_sort Duval, Daphne
collection PubMed
description In this letter, we briefly describe how we selected and implemented the quality criteria checklist (QCC) as a critical appraisal tool in rapid systematic reviews conducted to inform public health advice, guidance and policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. As these rapid reviews usually included a range of study designs, it was key to identify a single tool that would allow for reliable critical appraisal across most experimental and observational study designs and applicable to a range of topics. After carefully considering a number of existing tools, the QCC was selected as it had good interrater agreement between three reviewers (Fleiss kappa coefficient 0.639) and was found to be easy and fast to apply once familiar with the tool. The QCC consists of 10 questions, with sub-questions to specify how it should be applied to a specific study design. Four of these questions are considered as critical (on selection bias, group comparability, intervention/exposure assessment and outcome assessment) and the rating of a study (high, moderate or low methodological quality) depends on the responses to these four critical questions. Our results suggest that the QCC is an appropriate critical appraisal tool to assess experimental and observational studies within COVID-19 rapid reviews. This study was done at pace during the COVID-19 pandemic; further reliability analyses should be conducted, and more research is needed to validate the QCC across a range of public health topics. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02219-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10042397
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100423972023-03-28 Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC) Duval, Daphne Pearce-Smith, Nicola Palmer, Jennifer C. Sarfo-Annin, Jason Kwasi Rudd, Paul Clark, Rachel Syst Rev Letter In this letter, we briefly describe how we selected and implemented the quality criteria checklist (QCC) as a critical appraisal tool in rapid systematic reviews conducted to inform public health advice, guidance and policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. As these rapid reviews usually included a range of study designs, it was key to identify a single tool that would allow for reliable critical appraisal across most experimental and observational study designs and applicable to a range of topics. After carefully considering a number of existing tools, the QCC was selected as it had good interrater agreement between three reviewers (Fleiss kappa coefficient 0.639) and was found to be easy and fast to apply once familiar with the tool. The QCC consists of 10 questions, with sub-questions to specify how it should be applied to a specific study design. Four of these questions are considered as critical (on selection bias, group comparability, intervention/exposure assessment and outcome assessment) and the rating of a study (high, moderate or low methodological quality) depends on the responses to these four critical questions. Our results suggest that the QCC is an appropriate critical appraisal tool to assess experimental and observational studies within COVID-19 rapid reviews. This study was done at pace during the COVID-19 pandemic; further reliability analyses should be conducted, and more research is needed to validate the QCC across a range of public health topics. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02219-z. BioMed Central 2023-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10042397/ /pubmed/36973811 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02219-z Text en © Crown 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Letter
Duval, Daphne
Pearce-Smith, Nicola
Palmer, Jennifer C.
Sarfo-Annin, Jason Kwasi
Rudd, Paul
Clark, Rachel
Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)
title Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)
title_full Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)
title_fullStr Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)
title_full_unstemmed Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)
title_short Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC)
title_sort critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of covid-19 studies: implementation of the quality criteria checklist (qcc)
topic Letter
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36973811
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02219-z
work_keys_str_mv AT duvaldaphne criticalappraisalinrapidsystematicreviewsofcovid19studiesimplementationofthequalitycriteriachecklistqcc
AT pearcesmithnicola criticalappraisalinrapidsystematicreviewsofcovid19studiesimplementationofthequalitycriteriachecklistqcc
AT palmerjenniferc criticalappraisalinrapidsystematicreviewsofcovid19studiesimplementationofthequalitycriteriachecklistqcc
AT sarfoanninjasonkwasi criticalappraisalinrapidsystematicreviewsofcovid19studiesimplementationofthequalitycriteriachecklistqcc
AT ruddpaul criticalappraisalinrapidsystematicreviewsofcovid19studiesimplementationofthequalitycriteriachecklistqcc
AT clarkrachel criticalappraisalinrapidsystematicreviewsofcovid19studiesimplementationofthequalitycriteriachecklistqcc