医学
公共卫生
比例(比率)
流行病学
质量评定
环境卫生
家庭医学
质量(理念)
外部质量评估
内科学
病理
量子力学
认识论
物理
哲学
标识
DOI:10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
摘要
The quality assessment of non-randomized is an important component of a thorough meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Low quality can lead to a distortion of the summary effect estimate. Recent guidelines for the reporting of meta-analyses of observational recommend the assessment of the study quality (MOOSE) [1]. In principal, three categories of quality assessments tools are available: scales, simple checklists, or checklists with a summary judgment (for details see Sanderson et al. 2007 [2]). The results of the quality assessment can be used in several ways such as forming inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, informing a sensitivity analysis or metaregression, weighting studies, or highlighting areas of methodological quality poorly addressed by the included [3]. 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]. Sanderson et al. [2] recently identified overall 86 tools for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies. Their review highlighted the lack of a single obvious candidate tool for assessing quality of observational epidemiological studies [2]. In the field of randomized trials, it has been shown that the choice of quality scale can dramatically influence the interpretation of meta-analyses, and can even reverse conclusions regarding the effectiveness of an intervention [4]. Wells et al. [5] proposed a scale for assessing the quality of published non-randomized in meta-analyses,
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI