EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography



Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography



International Journal of Epidemiology 36(3): 666-676



Background Assessing quality and susceptibility to bias is essential when interpreting primary research and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Tools for assessing quality in clinical trials are well-described but much less attention has been given to similar tools for observational epidemiological studies.Methods Tools were identified from a search of three electronic databases, bibliographies and an Internet search using Google((R)). Two reviewers extracted data using a pre-piloted extraction form and strict inclusion criteria. Tool content was evaluated for domains potentially related to bias and was informed by the STROBE guidelines for reporting observational epidemiological studies.Results A total of 86 tools were reviewed, comprising 41 simple checklists, 12 checklists with additional summary judgements and 33 scales. The number of items ranged from 3 to 36 (mean 13.7). One-third of tools were designed for single use in a specific review and one-third for critical appraisal. Half of the tools provided development details, although most were proposed for future use in other contexts. Most tools included items for selection methods (92%), measurement of study variables (86%), design-specific sources of bias (86%), control of confounding (78%) and use of statistics (78%); only 4% addressed conflict of interest. The distribution and weighting of domains across tools was variable and inconsistent.Conclusion A number of useful assessment tools have been identified by this report. Tools should be rigorously developed, evidence-based, valid, reliable and easy to use. There is a need to agree on critical elements for assessing susceptibility to bias in observational epidemiology and to develop appropriate evaluation tools.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 017531601

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 17470488

DOI: 10.1093/ije/dym018



Related references

Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology 18(10): 746-751, 2008

Potential Pitfalls of Reporting and Bias in Observational Studies With Propensity Score Analysis Assessing a Surgical Procedure: A Methodological Systematic Review. Annals of Surgery (): -, 2016

Frequency and impact of confounding by indication and healthy vaccinee bias in observational studies assessing influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review. Bmc Infectious Diseases 15(): 429-429, 2016

A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63(10): 1061-1070, 2010

Use of methodological tools for assessing the quality of studies in periodontology and implant dentistry: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 41(6): 625-631, 2015

Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank. Clinical Epidemiology 6(): 359-368, 2014

Evaluation of Quality Assessment Tools for Non-Randomised Controlled Trials Assessing Surgical Interventions: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. Value in Health 18(7): A722-A722, 2015

Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in psychiatric epidemiology: systematic review. British Journal of Psychiatry 200(6): 446-453, 2012

Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review. Bmj 338(): B866-B866, 2009

Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review. Bmj Open 8(3): E019703-E019703, 2018

A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology. Epidemiology and Health 38(): E2016014-E2016014, 2016

Epidemiology of painful procedures performed in neonates: A systematic review of observational studies. European Journal of Pain 20(4): 489-498, 2015

Patterns and epidemiology of acute poisoning in Ethiopia: systematic review of observational studies. Archives of Public Health 76: 34-34, 2018

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clinical Trials 16(1): 62-73, 1995

Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environmental Health Perspectives 121(9): 985-992, 2014