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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |