Cited by 257Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours

Open access
Wong, William CW, Cheung, Catherine SK, Hart, Graham J·2008·Emerging Themes in Epidemiology

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews based on the critical appraisal of observational and analytic studies on HIV prevalence and risk factors for HIV transmission among men having sex with men are very useful for health care decisions and planning. Such appraisal is particularly difficult, however, as the quality assessment tools available for use with observational and analytic studies are poorly established. Methods: We reviewed the existing quality assessment tools for systematic reviews of observational studies and developed a concise quality assessment checklist to help standardise decisions regarding the quality of studies, with careful consideration of issues such as external and internal validity. Results: A pilot version of the checklist was developed based on epidemiological principles, reviews of study designs, and existing checklists for the assessment of observational studies. The Quality Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies (QATSO) Score consists of five items: External validity (1 item), reporting (2 items), bias (1 item) and confounding factors (1 item). Expert opinions were sought and it was tested on manuscripts that fulfil the inclusion criteria of a systematic review. Like all assessment scales, QATSO may oversimplify and generalise information yet it is inclusive, simple and practical to use, and allows comparability between papers. Conclusion: A specific tool that allows researchers to appraise and guide study quality of observational studies is developed and can be modified for similar studies in the future.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1742-7622-5-23

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Vandenbrouke JP, von Elm E: Strengthening the reporting of observational epidemiological studies. STROBE Statement: Checklist of Essential Items Version 3. 2005 [http://www.strobe-statement.org/Checklist.html]
  2. Deeks J, Glanville J, Sheldon T: Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Effectiveness: CRD Guidelines for Those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. York, England: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 1996, CRD Report 4
  3. The Cochrane Collaborative Review Group on HIV Infection and AIDS: Editorial Policy: Inclusion and Appraisal of Experimental and Non-experimental (Observational) Studies. [http://www.igh.org/Cochrane]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–256 of 256

Metadata

Authors
Wong, W. C., Cheung, C. S., & Hart, G. J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Mortimer Market Centre (GB)
Corresponding author
Wong, William CW
Venue
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
Published
2008-11-17
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
23-23
ISSN
1742-7622 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2161763362
Cited by
257
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 19
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Emerging Themes in Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Keywords
quality assessment tools, systematic reviews, observational studies, HIV prevalence, men who have sex with men, HIV risk behavior, generalizability, internal validity, reporting quality, bias, confounding, critical appraisal

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