The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
No clear choice between Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare the inter-rater reliability, concurrent validity, completion time, and ease of use of two methodological quality (MQ) assessment tools for cross-sectional studies: an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Two raters applied the NOS and AXIS to 63 cross-sectional studies of health-related quality-of-life and breast cancer. RESULTS AXIS demonstrated poor inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.49) and required more than double the amount of time to complete compared to the NOS, which demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = 0.73). For concurrent validity, weak and moderate positive relationships existed between NOS and AXIS (rater 1: r = 0.26; rater 2: r = 0.45). Ease of using the tools was affected by the indirectness of MQ assessments, perceived thoroughness of the tools' content, and user experience. CONCLUSION This study was the first to assess the psychometric properties of a cross-sectional NOS and AXIS. The results did not support a clear choice between selecting either tool for evaluating MQ in cross-sectional studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., & Jemal, A. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21492 · Cited by 84,109
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716
A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016) · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 · Cited by 31,709
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x · Cited by 9,795
User’s guide to correlation coefficients
Akoglu, H. (2018) · Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001 · Cited by 5,849
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments
Lo, C. K.-L., Mertz, D., & Loeb, M. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-45 · Cited by 2,477
Cited by
Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., Schünemann, H. J., Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., El-harakeh, A., Bognanni, A., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31142-9 · Cited by 3,843
Risk of Bias Evaluation of Cross‐Sectional Studies: Adaptation of the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale
Carra, M. C., Romandini, P., & Romandini, M. (2026) · Journal of Periodontal Research · doi:10.1111/jre.13405 · Cited by 260
Suicidality in autistic youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis
O'Halloran, L., Coey, P., & Wilson, C. (2022) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102144 · Cited by 146
Newell, V., Phillips, L., Jones, C., Townsend, E., Richards, C., & Cassidy, S. (2023) · Molecular Autism · doi:10.1186/s13229-023-00544-7 · Cited by 143
Johnson, J. A., Sanghvi, P., & Mehrotra, S. (2022) · Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1177/02537176211034578 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Moskalewicz, A., & Oremus, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 120
- Pages
- 94-103
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2995284626
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 15.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- Funders
- University of Waterloo
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: No clear choice between Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.013
- The paper
- Moskalewicz, A., & Oremus, M. (2020). No clear choice between Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.013
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
