Cargando…

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

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 co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ma, Lin-Lu, Wang, Yun-Yun, Yang, Zhi-Hua, Huang, Di, Weng, Hong, Zeng, Xian-Tao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049186/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32111253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8
_version_ 1783502387936231424
author Ma, Lin-Lu
Wang, Yun-Yun
Yang, Zhi-Hua
Huang, Di
Weng, Hong
Zeng, Xian-Tao
author_facet Ma, Lin-Lu
Wang, Yun-Yun
Yang, Zhi-Hua
Huang, Di
Weng, Hong
Zeng, Xian-Tao
author_sort Ma, Lin-Lu
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7049186
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70491862020-03-11 Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Ma, Lin-Lu Wang, Yun-Yun Yang, Zhi-Hua Huang, Di Weng, Hong Zeng, Xian-Tao Mil Med Res Review 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. BioMed Central 2020-02-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7049186/ /pubmed/32111253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Ma, Lin-Lu
Wang, Yun-Yun
Yang, Zhi-Hua
Huang, Di
Weng, Hong
Zeng, Xian-Tao
Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
title Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
title_full Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
title_fullStr Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
title_full_unstemmed Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
title_short Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
title_sort methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7049186/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32111253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8
work_keys_str_mv AT malinlu methodologicalqualityriskofbiasassessmenttoolsforprimaryandsecondarymedicalstudieswhataretheyandwhichisbetter
AT wangyunyun methodologicalqualityriskofbiasassessmenttoolsforprimaryandsecondarymedicalstudieswhataretheyandwhichisbetter
AT yangzhihua methodologicalqualityriskofbiasassessmenttoolsforprimaryandsecondarymedicalstudieswhataretheyandwhichisbetter
AT huangdi methodologicalqualityriskofbiasassessmenttoolsforprimaryandsecondarymedicalstudieswhataretheyandwhichisbetter
AT wenghong methodologicalqualityriskofbiasassessmenttoolsforprimaryandsecondarymedicalstudieswhataretheyandwhichisbetter
AT zengxiantao methodologicalqualityriskofbiasassessmenttoolsforprimaryandsecondarymedicalstudieswhataretheyandwhichisbetter