Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 30 April 2007
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in International Journal of Epidemiology
- Vol. 36 (3), 666-676
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dym018
Abstract
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®. 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.Keywords
This publication has 64 references indexed in Scilit:
- The scandal of poor epidemiological research: ***BMJ, 2004
- A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal toolsBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2004
- Evaluating non-randomised intervention studiesHealth Technology Assessment, 2003
- Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials as a Measure of Methodologic QualityJAMA, 2002
- Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJ, 2001
- Low grade inflammation and coronary heart disease: prospective study and updated meta-analysesBMJ, 2000
- Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in EpidemiologyA Proposal for ReportingJAMA, 2000
- Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statementThe Lancet, 1999
- Controversy of Oral Contraceptives and Risk of Rheumatoid Arthirtis: Meta-analysis of Conflicting Studies and Review of Conflicting Meta-analyses with Special Emphasis on Analysis of HeterogeneityAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 1996
- An addition to the controversy on sunlight exposure and melanoma risk: A meta-analytical approachJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995