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.

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.

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?

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Untitled work
(2014) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 17,633
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses
Stang, A. (2010) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z · Cited by 17,396
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349
Methodological index for non‐randomized studies ( MINORS ): development and validation of a new instrument
Slim, K., Nini, E., Forestier, D., Kwiatkowski, F., Panis, Y., & Chipponi, J. (2003) · ANZ Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x · Cited by 7,603
Untitled work
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials
Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/83.8.713 · Cited by 4,808
Evidence-Based Medicine
Guyatt, G. H. (1992) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032 · Cited by 4,447
SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies
Hooijmans, C. R., Rovers, M. M., de Vries, R. B., Leenaars, M., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., & Langendam, M. W. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-43 · Cited by 4,415
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A. C., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., & Bouter, L. M. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 · Cited by 4,374
AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care
Brouwers, M. C., Kho, M. E., Browman, G. P., Burgers, J. S., Cluzeau, F., Feder, G., Fervers, B., Graham, I. D., Grimshaw, J., Hanna, S. E., et al. (2010) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.090449 · Cited by 3,790
The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Italian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2427/5768 · Cited by 3,374
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309 · cited 2×
“Of them, some are recommended and used, some are used without recommendation, and some are eliminated (8, 26), (32), (37–39, 46, 47, 78).”
BackgroundMethod
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Critical appraisal skills programme
Singh, J. (2013) · Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics · doi:10.4103/0976-500x.107697 · Cited by 2,596
The Delphi List
Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C. W., de Bie, R. A., Kessels, A. G. H., Boers, M., Bouter, L. M., & Knipschild, P. G. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00131-0 · Cited by 2,470
Going from evidence to recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Vist, G. E., Liberati, A., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.ae · Cited by 1,810
Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography
Sanderson, S., Tatt, I. D., & Higgins, J. P. (2007) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dym018 · Cited by 1,531
Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project
(2003) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qhc.12.1.18 · Cited by 1,446
GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations
Andrews, J., Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Alderson, P., Dahm, P., Falck-Ytter, Y., Nasser, M., Meerpohl, J., Post, P. N., Kunz, R., et al. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013 · Cited by 1,416
Update of the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable Preclinical Recommendations
Fisher, M., Feuerstein, G., Howells, D. W., Hurn, P. D., Kent, T. A., Savitz, S. I., & Lo, E. H. (2009) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.541128 · Cited by 1,352
A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8 · Cited by 1,349
Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials
Sacks, H. S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V. A., & Chalmers, T. C. (1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198702193160806 · Cited by 1,257
Recommendations for Standards Regarding Preclinical Neuroprotective and Restorative Drug Development
Roundtable, S. T. A. I. (1999) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.30.12.2752 · Cited by 1,256
Translating guidelines into practice. A systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines.
(1997) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 1,226
Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings.
Campbell, D. T. (1957) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040950 · Cited by 1,138
Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Leeflang, M. M. G., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008 · Cited by 1,124
Primary total hip replacement surgery: a systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses.
Fitzpatrick, R. M., Shortall, Sculpher, Murray, Morris, Lodge, Dawson, Carr, Britton, & Briggs, A. H. (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2200 · Cited by 969
Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.
West, S. L., King, V., Carey, T. S., Lohr, K. N., Mckoy, N. A., Sutton, S. F., & Lux, L. J. (2002) · PubMed Central · Cited by 873
Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66422-7 · Cited by 843
Comparison of Treatment Effects between Animal Experiments and Clinical Trials: Systematic Review
Perel, P., Roberts, I., Sena, E., Wheble, P., Briscoe, C., Sandercock, P., Macleod, M., Mignini, L. E., Jayaram, P., & Khan, K. S. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.be · Cited by 827
Validation of an index of the quality of review articles
Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (1991) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-b · Cited by 788
Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Weswood, M. E., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-9 · Cited by 767
Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions
McCulloch, P. G., Taylor, I., Sasako, M., Lovett, B., & Griffin, D. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1448 · Cited by 761
Pooling of Animal Experimental Data Reveals Influence of Study Design and Publication Bias
Macleod, M. R., O’Collins, T., Howells, D. W., & Donnan, G. A. (2004) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000125719.25853.20 · Cited by 734
An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07283-5 · Cited by 734
Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Schmid, C. H. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)08468-7 · Cited by 655
Uses and abuses of screening tests
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07948-5 · Cited by 545
Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07500-1 · Cited by 491
Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: A practical guide
Vesterinen, H. M., Sena, E. S., Egan, K. J., Hirst, T. C., Churolov, L., Currie, G. L., Antonic‐Baker, A., Howells, D. W., & Macleod, M. R. (2013) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.09.010 · Cited by 486
Systematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles
Oxman, A. D. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6955.648 · Cited by 480
The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation.
Browman, G. P., Levine, M. N., Mohide, E. A., Hayward, R. S., Pritchard, K. I., Gafni, A., & Laupacis, A. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1995.13.2.502 · Cited by 441
Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W., Dinnes, J., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8250 · Cited by 373
Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study
Hartling, L., Ospina, M., Liang, Y., Dryden, D. M., Hooton, N., Krebs Seida, J., & Klassen, T. P. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b4012 · Cited by 348
Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review.
Britton, McKee, M., Black, McPherson, Sanderson, C. F. B., & Bain (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2130 · Cited by 330
A systematic review of appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: multiple similarities and one common deficit
Vlayen, J., Aertgeerts, B., Hannes, K., Sermeus, W., & Ramaekers, D. (2005) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzi027 · Cited by 313
Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta‐aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis
Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. S. (2011) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05636.x · Cited by 287
A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., & Mallett, S. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014 · Cited by 283
Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research
Hooijmans, C. R., & Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001482 · Cited by 195
Types of Study in Medical Research
Röhrig, B., Prel, J.-B. D., Wachtlin, D., & Blettner, M. (2009) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2009.0262 · Cited by 192
A systematic review of the effectiveness of critical appraisal skills training for clinicians
Taylor, R. S., Reeves, B. C., Ewings, P., Binns, S. H., Keast, J., & Mears, R. (2000) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00574.x · Cited by 182
Treatment of Pulmonary Tuberculosis with Streptomycin and Para-Amino-Salicylic Acid
(1950) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.2.4688.1073 · Cited by 175
Systematic reviews of animal experiments
Sandercock, P. A., & Roberts, I. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09812-4 · Cited by 157
Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management, Part I: Introduction and General Considerations
Manchikanti, L. (2008) · Pain Physician · doi:10.36076/ppj.2008/11/161 · Cited by 157
How to Practice Evidence-Based Medicine
Swanson, J., Schmitz, D., & Chung, K. C. (2010) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181dc54ee · Cited by 138
Aid to the Evaluation of Therapeutic Studies
REISCH, J. S., Tyson, J. E., & Mize, S. G. (1989) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.84.5.815 · Cited by 123
Archie Cochrane and His Vision for Evidence-Based Medicine
Shah, H. M., & Chung, K. C. (2009) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181b03928 · Cited by 119
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence
Oxman, A. D., Schünemann, H. J., & Fretheim, A. (2006) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-4-20 · Cited by 116
The international EQUATOR network: enhancing the quality and transparency of health care research
Pandis, N., & Fedorowicz, Z. (2011) · Journal of Applied Oral Science · doi:10.1590/s1678-77572011000500001 · Cited by 104
The Revised QUADAS-2 Tool
Schueler, S., Schuetz, G. M., & Dewey, M. (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-4-201202210-00018 · Cited by 91
Fisher, Bradford Hill, and randomization.
Armitage, P. (2003) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyg286 · Cited by 86
Doctors’ Perceptions and Use of Evidence-Based Medicine
Swennen, M. H. J., van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., Boeije, H., van Rheenen, N., Verheul, F., van der Graaf, Y., & Kalkman, C. J. (2013) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31829ed3cc · Cited by 82
Ingrowing Toe-nail
Chapman, P. F. (1934) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.2.3857.1073-b · Cited by 78
The Cochrane Collaboration
Levin, A. R. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-4-200108210-00035 · Cited by 74
Meta-analysis of the Efficacy of Different Training Strategies in Animal Models of Ischemic Stroke
Schmidt, A., Wellmann, J., Schilling, M., Strecker, J., Sommer, C., Schäbitz, W., Diederich, K., & Minnerup, J. (2013) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.113.002048 · Cited by 70
Reproducibility of the Portuguese version of the PEDro Scale
Shiwa, S. R., Costa, L. O. P., Costa, L. D. C. M., Moseley, A. M., Hespanhol, L., Venancio, R. C., Ruggero, C. R., Sato, T. D. O., & Lópes, A. D. (2011) · Cadernos de Saúde Pública · doi:10.1590/s0102-311x2011001000019 · Cited by 68
Archibald Cochrane (1909-1988): the father of evidence-based medicine
Stavrou, A., Challoumas, D., & Dimitrakakis, G. (2013) · Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1093/icvts/ivt451 · Cited by 61
Joanna Briggs Institute: An Evidence-Based Practice Database
Vardell, E., & Malloy, M. (2013) · Medical Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/02763869.2013.837734 · Cited by 60
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Buyang Huanwu Decoction in Animal Model of Focal Cerebral Ischemia
Wei, R., Teng, H.-J., Yin, B., Xu, Y., Du, Y., He, F.-P., Chu, K., Luo, B., & Zheng, G. (2013) · Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1155/2013/138484 · Cited by 58
Quality assessment of clinical guidelines in China: 1993 - 2010.
Chen, Y., Yao, L., Xiao, X.-J., Wang, Q., Wang, Z.-H., Liang, F., Liang, H., Wang, X., Shen, X., Xie, C.-C., et al. (2012) · PubMed · doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2012.20.011 · Cited by 50
Evaluation of a programme of workshops for promoting the teaching of critical appraisal skills
Ibbotson, Grimshaw, J., & Grant (1998) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00256.x · Cited by 46
Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review
Willis, B. H., & Quigley, M. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-27 · Cited by 43
Meta-analyses including data from observational studies
O’Connor, A. M., & Sargeant, J. M. (2014) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.10.017 · Cited by 38
Practical Guide to Understanding the Need for Clinical Practice Guidelines
Neely, J. G., Graboyes, E. M., Paniello, R. C., Sequeira, S. M., & Grindler, D. J. (2013) · Otolaryngology · doi:10.1177/0194599813487501 · Cited by 38
Commentary on the role of expert opinion in developing evidence-based guidelines
Eibling, D. E., Fried, M. P., Blitzer, A., & Postma, G. (2013) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1002/lary.24175 · Cited by 35
Edaravone Improves Functional and Structural Outcomes in Animal Models of Focal Cerebral Ischemia: A Systematic Review
Wu, S., Sena, E. S., Egan, K. J., Macleod, M. R., & Mead, G. E. (2013) · International Journal of Stroke · doi:10.1111/ijs.12163 · Cited by 32
From bench-top to chair-side: How scientific evidence is incorporated into clinical practice
Tracy, S. L. (2013) · Dental Materials · doi:10.1016/j.dental.2013.08.200 · Cited by 26
Towards evidence-based translational research: The pros and cons of conducting systematic reviews of animal studies
van Luijk, J. A. K. R. (2013) · ALTEX · doi:10.14573/altex.2013.2.256 · Cited by 25
Usage evaluation of a resource to support evidence-based physiotherapy: the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro)
de Campos, T. F., Beckenkamp, P. R., & Moseley, A. M. (2013) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.physio.2012.12.001 · Cited by 24
The EQUATOR Network and the PRISMA Statement for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Harms, M. (2009) · Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.physio.2009.10.001 · Cited by 23
An alternative pathway for preclinical research in fluid management
Sibbald, W. J. (2000) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc970 · Cited by 22
The quality of clinical practice guidelines in C hina: a systematic assessment
Hu, J., Chen, R., Wu, S., Tang, J.-L., Leng, G. C., Kunnamo, I., Yang, Z., Wang, W., Hua, X., Zhang, Y., et al. (2012) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01893.x · Cited by 22
Self-citation
Meta-analyses, multivariate analyses, and coping with the play of chance
Clarke, M. J., & Chalmers, I. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)79032-2 · Cited by 22
Systematic Reviews A Logical Methodological Extension of Evidence‐based Medicine
Gallagher, E. J. (1999) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb00142.x · Cited by 15
Guidelines for the treatment of pneumonia and urinary tract infections: evaluation of methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument
Henig, O., Yahav, D., Leibovici, L., & Paul, M. (2013) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12348 · Cited by 14
Shifting effects in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions: a new kind of performance bias?
Gold, C., Erkkilä, J., & Crawford, M. (2012) · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01922.x · Cited by 13
Evidence-based medicine – are we boiling the frog?
Muckart, D. J. J. (2013) · South African Medical Journal · doi:10.7196/samj.6805 · Cited by 11
Using preappraised evidence sources to guide practice decisions
Chapa, D. W., Hartung, M. K., Mayberry, L. J., & Pintz, C. (2012) · Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2012.00787.x · Cited by 7
Enhanced quality and transparency of health research reporting can lead to improvements in public health policy decision-making: help from the EQUATOR Network
Kac, G., & Hirst, A. (2011) · Cadernos de Saúde Pública · doi:10.1590/s0102-311x2011001000001 · Cited by 5
Evidence-based medicine should be based on science
Tunguy-Desmarais, G. P., & Muckart, D. J. J. (2013) · South African Medical Journal · doi:10.7196/samj.7406 · Cited by 4

Flagged first, then by citations

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

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

Sorted by citations

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?
Ma, L.-L., Wang, Y.-Y., Yang, Z.-H., Huang, D., Weng, H., & Zeng, X.-T. (2020) · Military Medical Research · doi:10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8 · Cited by 1,648
Self-citation
Effects of music interventions on stress-related outcomes: a systematic review and two meta-analyses
de Witte, M., Spruit, A., van Hooren, S., Moonen, X., & Stams, G.-J. (2020) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2019.1627897 · Cited by 539
Anxiety, depression, trauma-related, and sleep disorders among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Marvaldi, M., Mallet, J., Dubertret, C., Moro, M. R., & Guessoum, S. B. (2021) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.03.024 · Cited by 562
Prevalence of statin intolerance: a meta-analysis
Bytyçi, I., Penson, P. E., Mikhailidis, D. P., Wong, N. D., Hernandez, A. V., Sahebkar, A., Thompson, P. D., Mazidi, M., Rysz, J., Pella, D., et al. (2022) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac015 · Cited by 481
Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions
Viswanathan, M., Patnode, C. D., Berkman, N. D., Bass, E. B., Chang, S., Hartling, L., Murad, M. H., Treadwell, J. R., & Kane, R. L. (2017) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcmethguide2 · Cited by 453

See all 2,082

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: Zhang, Yonggang
Kwong, Joey S.W.
Zhang, Chao
Li, Sheng
Sun, Feng
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

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

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks