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

By S. Sanderson, I. Tatt, Julian P. T. Higgins. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2007

1,566 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a1726a7bb59e3ddadd4c61d7769db734b56cc5f3

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Health Professions

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

ORIGINAL ARTICLES The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2008, neutral): “Such instruments have been developed by other groups and were the subject of a recent systematic review [ 28 ].”
Three-dimensional Imaging Methods for Quantitative Analysis of Facial Soft Tissues and Skeletal Morphology in Patients with Orofacial Clefts: A Systematic Review (2014, neutral): “Yet, we decided to use this scoring system for the assessment of methodological quality of non-randomized studies [162] as there is no other obvious candidate for assessing these type of studies [162].”
Long-term mental health of war-refugees: a systematic literature review (2015, background): “As already stated, at present there is no consensus on how to assess either the quality of observational studies or the impact of the study quality on the meta-analysis results [24, 25].”
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. (2007, neutral): “Such instruments have been developed by other groups and were the subject of a recent systematic review (28).”
The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review (2015, methodology): “Of them, some are recommended and used, some are used without recommendation, and some are eliminated (8, 26), (32), (37–39, 46, 47, 78).”
Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses (2010, background): “It has been criticized that the use of summary scores involve inherent weighting of component items including items that may not be related to the validity of the study findings [2].”
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007, neutral): “Such instruments have been developed by other groups and were the subject of a recent systematic review [28].”
Assessing Bias in Studies of Prognostic Factors (2013, background): “Similar to our original review of quality assessment tools used in prognosis systematic reviews, they reported a lack of suitable tools (34).”
Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play (2011, background): “and combined with items specifically developed to be applicable to this research area.”
The Relationship Between Professional Burnout and Quality and Safety in Healthcare: A Meta-Analysis (2017, methodology): “34, 35 We tested and refined the initial rating system on several studies before rating the full sample.”
Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2017, methodology): “Risk of bias was assessed for each of the domains as low, high or unclear using pre-specified rules [18] Data from included studies were extracted by two independent investigators (SL and AH) using a standard extraction form.”