Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.

By Suzanne L. West, V. King, Timothy C Carey, K. Lohr, N. McKoy, S. Sutton, Linda Lux. Evidence report/technology assessment, 2002

961 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0280c4f7bc10678bf77424b815f49bb06154d012

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. D. A. Cook
2. Darcy A. Reed
3. Mark Helfand
4. Darren A. DeWalt
5. N. Calanzani
6. Lin-lu Ma
7. M. Gysels
8. B. Gomes

Citations in the corpus

• Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. (2007, methodology): “For example, study design (item 1) was scored according to established hierarchies of research designs.(23,25) There is general agreement that multiinstitutional studies are preferable to single-institution studies (item 2)(6,7,9) and that objective measurements are preferable to subjective measures”
• Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? (2020, background): “in 2002 [27] are not commonly used or recommended nowadays.”
• Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. (2013, methodology): “[12] and examined similar tools that have been used by various organizations, such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (which uses this type of tool to provide public health guidance) [13] and the US Preventive Services Task Force [14].”
• Frailty and post-operative outcomes in older surgical patients: a systematic review (2016, methodology): “Quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument.”
• Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (2018, background): “A large variety of these tools exists and is, for most part, checklists and scales of quality appraisal items.(11) For”
• Palivizumab prophylaxis reduces hospitalization due to respiratory syncytial virus in young children with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease. (2003, unknown): “7) свидетельствуют о высокой частоте ИНДП и госпитализаций в связи с ними у детей групп риска тяжелого течения РСВ-инфекции, составившей, по нашим данным, 15,2 и 8,7% у недоношенных детей без БЛД, 23,7 и 18,4% — у детей с БЛД, по 11,1% — у детей с ВПС, соответственно, что согласуется с данными литер”
• Ten Years of Longitudinal Research on U.S. Adolescent Sexual Behavior: Developmental Correlates of Sexual Intercourse, and the Importance of Age, Gender and Ethnic Background. (2008, methodology): “Drawing from Barnes and Bero (1998) and West et al. (2002), we rated the comprehensiveness of each review (available from the first author).”
• Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review (2013, methodology): “This made use of the key elements for grading systems recommended by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality – quality, quantity and consistency of the evidence [22].”