CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,082Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Methodological Quality Assessment Tools for Preclinical and Clinical Studies, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, and Clinical Practice Guideline: A Systematic Review

Zeng, Xiantao, Zhang, Yonggang, Kwong, Joey S.W., Zhang, Chao, Li, Sheng, Sun, Feng, Niu, Yuming, Du, Liang·2015·Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
DOI 10.1111/jebm.12141
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the methodological assessment tools for pre-clinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers Manual, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) up to May 20th, 2014. Two authors selected studies and extracted data; quantitative analysis was performed to summarize the characteristics of included tools. RESULTS: We included a total of 21 assessment tools for analysis. A number of tools were developed by academic organizations, and some were developed by only a small group of researchers. The JBI developed the highest number of methodological assessment tools, with CASP coming second. Tools for assessing the methodological quality of randomized controlled studies were most abundant. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias is the best available tool for assessing RCTs. For cohort and case-control studies, we recommend the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) is an excellent tool for assessing non-randomized interventional studies, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (ARHQ) methodology checklist is applicable for cross-sectional studies. For diagnostic accuracy test studies, the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool is recommended; the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool is available for assessing animal studies; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a measurement tool for systematic reviews/meta-analyses; an 18-item tool has been developed for appraising case series studies, and the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE)-II instrument is widely used to evaluate clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully identified a variety of methodological assessment tools for different types of study design. However, further efforts in the development of critical appraisal tools are warranted since there is currently a lack of such tools for other fields, e.g. genetic studies, and some existing tools (nested case-control studies and case reports, for example) are in need of updating to be in line with current research practice and rigor. In addition, it is very important that all critical appraisal tools remain subjective and performance bias is effectively avoided.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jebm.12141

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 96 references

2 of the 96 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2 [program]. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre The Cochrane Collaboration 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S. W., Zhang, C., Li, S., Sun, F., Niu, Y., & Du, L.
Affiliations
  • Center for Evidence‐Based and Translational Medicine Zhongnan Hospital Wuhan University Wuhan China
  • Sichuan University (CN)
  • Hubei University of Medicine (CN)
  • Wuhan University (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Center for Evidence‐based Medicine and Clinical Research Taihe Hospital Hubei University of Medicine Shiyan China
Corresponding author
Du, Liang
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
2-10
ISSN
  • 1756-5383 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-5391
DOI
10.1111/jebm.12141
OpenAlex
W1709885097
Cited by
2,082
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 141 · 2025: 212 · 2024: 278 · 2023: 226 · 2022: 204 · 2021: 253 · 2020: 237 · 2019: 145 · 2018: 156 · 2017: 121 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 40
FWCI
21.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 52 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Scientific Fund and project (81302508, 81403276)
  • China Medical Board Collaboration Program in Health Policy Evidence
  • Foundation of Education and Science Planning Project of Hubei Province (2012A050)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
methodological quality assessment, preclinical research, meta-analysis, risk of bias, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, animal studies, Joanna Briggs Institute, CASP, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, QUADAS-2, AMSTAR, AGREE II, performance bias
MeSH terms
Clinical Studies as Topic, Data Accuracy, Animals, Humans, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Biomedical Research

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