medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Electronic)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2013, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2013; 24 (3)

Evaluation lists and scales for the quality of scientific studies

Cascaes SF, Valdivia ABA, da Rosa IR, Barbosa GFPJ, da Silva R

Language: Spanish
References: 60
Page: 295-312
PDF size: 353.06 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to identify the scales of the methodological quality assessment of scientific articles and checklists of information quality in the area of health. It was performed two basic procedures: a) systematic review of the scientific literature available in the databases Web of Science, Journals@ovid, Science Direct, Scopus, SportDiscus, Mary Ann Liebert Journals Online and Oxford, with selection of the articles published in the last five years and indexed in English; b) bibliometric review in the articles previously selected in the systematic review, without setting time or Language. We selected studies that accounted for 14 scales and their modifications, plus 11 checklists. Therefore, one can conclude that the scales and lists differ in the number of items, validity, reliability and score range and most have valid and reliable psychometric properties. It was also found that these scales and checklists are applicable to empirical studies, especially randomized controlled trials, and revisional studies, principally meta-analysis, both in pursuit of methodological quality as the quality of information.


REFERENCES

  1. Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(7). p. 651-4.

  2. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. An empirical study of the possible relation of treayment differences to quality scores controlled randomised clinical trials. Contr Clin Trials. 1990;11:339-52.

  3. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care - Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Brit Med J. 2001;323(7303). pp. 42-6.

  4. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials - an annotated-bibliography of scales and checklists. Contr Clin Trials. 1995;16(1):62-73.

  5. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: 2003.

  6. Greenfield M, Rosenberg AL, O'Reilly M, Shanks AM, Sliwinski MJ, Nauss MD. The quality of randomized controlled trials in major anesthesiology journals. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(6):1759-64.

  7. Serra LC. Las buenas prácticas de publicación, su evolución y el impacto esperado en salud pública. Rev Cubana Sal Públ. 2012;38:725-33.

  8. Taylor CF, Dawn F, Sansone SA, Aerts J, Apweiler R, Ashburner M, et al. Promoting coherent minimum reporting guidelines for biological and biomedical investigations: the MIBBI project. Nat Biotech. 2008;26:889-96.

  9. Munhoz Junior E. Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas. Epidemiol Serv Saúde. 2006;15:7-34.

  10. Higgins JPT, Green S. Manual Cochrane de revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

  11. Higgins JPT. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2005.

  12. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Contr ClinTrials. 1996;17(1):1-12.

  13. de Vet HC, de Bie RA, van der Heijden GJ, Verhagen AP, Sijpkes P, Knipschild PG. Systematic reviews on the basis of methodological criteria. Physioth. 1997;83(6):284-89.

  14. Van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration back review group for spinal disorders. Spine. 1997;22(20). p. 2323-30.

  15. Tate AR, Gennings C, Hoffman RA, Strittmatter AP, Retchin SM. Effects of boneconducted music on swimming performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(4):982-8.

  16. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: A systematic review. Physioth. 2008;88(2):156-75.

  17. Yates SL, Morley S, Eccleston C, Williams ACD. A scale for rating the quality of psychological trials for pain. Pain. 2005;117(3):314-25.

  18. Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, Kessels AGH, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The delphi list: A criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(12). p. 1235-41.

  19. Sung L, Nathan PC, Lange B, Beyene J, Buchanan GR. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor decrease febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy in children with cancer: A metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(16). p. 3350-6.

  20. Dekker A, Bulley S, Beyene J, Dupuis LL, Doyle JJ, Sung L. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor after autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(33). p. 5207-15.

  21. Warschkow R, Tarantino I, Jensen K, Beutner U, Clerici T, Schmied BM, et al. Bilateral Superficial Cervical Plexus Block in Combination with General Anesthesia Has a Low Efficacy in Thyroid Surgery: A Metaanalysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Thyroid. 2012;22(1):44-52.

  22. Clark HD, Wells GA, Huet C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: Reliability of the Jadad scale. Contr Clin Trials. 1999;20(5):448-52.

  23. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial Board Cochrane C. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine. 2003;28(12):1290-9.

  24. Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Moseley AM. PEDro. A database of randomized trials and systematic reviews in physiotherapy. ManTher. 2000;5(4):223-6.

  25. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713-21.

  26. Bizzini M, Childs JD, Piva SR. Systematic review of the quality of randomized controlled trials for patellofemoral pain syndrome. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Phys Ther. 2003;33(1):4-20.

  27. Chalmers TC, Jr Smith H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. In: Smith HJR BB, editor. Contr Clin Trials.1981;2(1):31-49.

  28. Sculier JP, Berghmans T, Castaigne C, Luce S, Sotiriou C, Vermylen P, et al. Maintenance chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer: a critical review of the literature. Lung Canc. 1998;19(2):141-51.

  29. Berard A, Andreu N, Tetrault JP, Niyonsenga T, Myhal D. Reliability of Chalmers scale to assess quality in meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis. An Epidemiol. 2000;10(8):498-503.

  30. Reisch JS, Tyson JE, Mize SG. Aid to the evaluation of therapeutic studies. Pediatr. 1989;84(5):815-27.

  31. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, Orourke K, McGeer AJ, Labbe KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into metaanalysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(3):255-65.

  32. Sindhu F, Carpenter L, Seers K. Development of a tool to rate the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials using a Delphi technique. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25(6):1262-8.

  33. Smith LA, Oldman AD, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Teasing apart quality and validity in systematic reviews: an example from acupuncture trials in chronic neck and back pain. Pain. 2000;86(1-2):119-32.

  34. Arrive L, Renard R, Carrat F, Belkacem A, Dahan H, Le Hir P, et al. A scale of methodological quality for clinical studies of radiologic examinations. Radiology. 2000;217(1):69-74.

  35. Aarts JWM, van den Haak P, Nelen WLDM, Tuil WS, Faber MJ, Kremer JAM. Patient-focused Internet interventions in reproductive medicine: a scoping review. Hum Reprod Upd. 2012;18(2):211-27.

  36. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in metaanalyses. 2000.

  37. Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, Kessels AGH, Boers M, Knipschild PG. Balneotherapy and quality assessment: Interobserver reliability of the Maastricht criteria list and the need for blinded quality assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(4). p. 335-41.

  38. Seferiadis A, Rosenfeld M, Gunnarsson R. A review of treatment interventions in whiplash-associated disorders. Europ Sp J. 2004;13(5):387-97.

  39. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Metaanalysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;283(15). p. 2008-12.

  40. Andrew E, Eide H, Fuglerud P, Hagen EK, Kristoffersen DT, Lambrechts M, et al. Publications on clinical trials with X-ray contrast media: differences in quality between journals and decades. Europ J Radiol. 1990;10(2):92-7.

  41. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Comm Heal. 1998;52(6). p. 377-84.

  42. Macfarlane TV, Glenny AM, Worthington HV. Systematic review of populationbased epidemiological studies of oro-facial pain. J Dent. 2001;29(7):451-67.

  43. Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Jansen S. Quality of Systematic Reviews of Observational Nontherapeutic Studies. Prev Chron Dis. 2010;7(6). p. 9-195.

  44. Giannakopoulos NN, Rammelsberg P, Eberhard L, Schmitter M. A new instrument for assessing the quality of studies on prevalence. Clin Oral Invest. 2012;16(3). p. 781-8.

  45. Nguyen QV, Bezemer PD, Habets L, Prahl-Andersen B. A systematic review of the relationship between overjet size and traumatic dental injuries. Europ J Orthod. 1999;21(5):503-15.

  46. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287(21):2801-4.

  47. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(3). p. 239-46.

  48. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, Grp C. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials. A comparative before and after evaluation. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285(15):1992-5.

  49. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Springer Verlag. 2003;7(1). pp. 2-7.

  50. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical-evidence of bias - dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(5):408-12.

  51. von Elm E, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Brit Med J. 2007;335(7624):806-8.

  52. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Explanation and Elaboration. Epidemiol. 2007;18(6):805-35.

  53. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013-20.

  54. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Bmc Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):10.

  55. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and metaanalyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Brit Med J. 2009;(6):1-27.

  56. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Validity. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use: Oxford; 2004. p. 172-93.

  57. Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(12):1249-56.

  58. Bhogal SK, Teasell RW, Foley NC, Speechley MR. The PEDro scale provides a more comprehensive measure of methodological quality than the Jadad Scale in stroke rehabilitation literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(7):668-73.

  59. Nunes ED. A review of research studies conducted on scientific production in collective health in Brazil. Scientometrics. 1999;44(2):157-67.

  60. Glanzel W, Leta J, Thijs B. Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics. 2006;67(1):67-86.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com