Cited by 185Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Development of a quality assessment instrument for trials of treatments for depression and neurosis

Moncrieff, Joanna, Churchill, Rachel, Drummond, D. Colin, McGuire, Hugh·2001·International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

Abstract

There is evidence that the quality of controlled clinical trials affects the results that are obtained. A systematic approach to the assessment of quality is required for psychiatric research. This study set out to develop an instrument for the assessment of the quality of controlled trials of interventions for depressive and non‐psychotic conditions. A pilot study led to the development of a scale containing 23 items covering a wide range of aspects of quality including objective formulation, design, presentation of results, analysis and quality of conclusions. Scoring criteria were devised and the scale was then subjected to reliability testing using a random sample of trials of treatment for depression and ‘neurosis’. The scale showed moderate inter‐rater reliability and results were comparable to those obtained with shorter instruments. It was quick and easy to use. There were significant correlations between year of publication and overall quality score with later studies showing higher quality. The instrument developed here provides a systematic approach to the assessment of quality for use in critical appraisal of individual studies and meta‐analysis. However, the scoring process should be used cautiously since inter‐rater agreement was only moderate. Copyright © 2001 Whurr Publishers Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mpr.108

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Risk of bias within each study was assessed using an adapted Quality Rating Scale that included qualitative and uncontrolled studies.

    “Risk of bias within each study was assessed using a version (Multimedia Appendix 2) of the Quality Rating Scale (QRS) [48] adapted to include qualitative and uncontrolled studies.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moncrieff, J., Churchill, R., Drummond, D. C., & McGuire, H.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Moncrieff, Joanna
Venue
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-08
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
126-133
ISSN
  • 1049-8931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-0657
OpenAlex
W2015709747
Cited by
185
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
12.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
quality assessment tools, depression, neurosis, psychiatric research, inter-rater reliability, critical appraisal, meta-analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review