July 14, 2024

Wellness Nest

take care of your Health d, Live Your Best Life

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? | Military Medical Research

13 min read
  • Stavrou A, Challoumas D, Dimitrakakis G. Archibald Cochrane (1909-1988): the father of evidence-based medicine. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;18(1):121–4.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Group E-BMW. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2420–5.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin A. The Cochrane collaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(4):309–12.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):123–7.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke M, Chalmers I. Meta-analyses, multivariate analyses, and coping with the play of chance. Lancet. 1998;351(9108):1062–3.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:20.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Wang Y, Weng H, Wang D, Han F, Huang Q, et al. Management of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: quality of clinical practice guidelines and variations in recommendations. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):1054.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT. Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol Bull. 1957;54(4):297–312.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323(7303):42–6.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8(1):2–10.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • A Medical Research Council Investigation. Treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis with streptomycin and Para-aminosalicylic acid. Br Med J. 1950;2(4688):1073–85.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage P. Fisher, Bradford Hill, and randomization. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(6):925–8.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713–21.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiwa SR, Costa LO, Costa Lda C, Moseley A, Hespanhol Junior LC, Venancio R, et al. Reproducibility of the Portuguese version of the PEDro scale. Cad Saude Publica. 2011;27(10):2063–8.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibbotson T, Grimshaw J, Grant A. Evaluation of a programme of workshops for promoting the teaching of critical appraisal skills. Med Educ. 1998;32(5):486–91.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh J. Critical appraisal skills programme. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4(1):76.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor R, Reeves B, Ewings P, Binns S, Keast J, Mears R. A systematic review of the effectiveness of critical appraisal skills training for clinicians. Med Educ. 2000;34(2):120–5.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408–12.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs Seida J, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4012.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(12):1235–41.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981;2(1):31–49.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2002;47:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibbald WJ. An alternative pathway for preclinical research in fluid management. Crit Care. 2000;4(Suppl 2):S8–15.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2007;334(7586):197.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001482.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroke Therapy Academic Industry R. Recommendations for standards regarding preclinical neuroprotective and restorative drug development. Stroke. 1999;30(12):2752–8.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher M, Feuerstein G, Howells DW, Hurn PD, Kent TA, Savitz SI, et al. Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations. Stroke. 2009;40(6):2244–50.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Macleod MR, O’Collins T, Howells DW, Donnan GA. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias. Stroke. 2004;35(5):1203–8.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:43.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ. 2002;324(7351):1448–51.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):1–173.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–6.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Moga C, Guo B, Schopflocher D, Harstall C. Development of a quality appraisal tool for case series studies using a modified delphi technique 2012. .(Accept 15 Januray 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisch JS, Tyson JE, Mize SG. Aid to the evaluation of therapeutic studies. Pediatrics. 1989;84(5):815–27.

    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer NA, Schneeweiss S, McNeil BJ, Berger ML, Walker AM, Ollendorf DA, et al. GRACE principles: recognizing high-quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(6):467–71.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes DA, Schulz KF. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet. 2002;359(9300):57–61.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes. Lancet. 2002;359(9303):341–5.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. (Accessed 16 Jan 2020).

  • Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu L, Li BH, Wang YY, Wang CY, Zi H, Weng H, et al. Periodontal disease and risk of benign prostate hyperplasia: a cross-sectional study. Mil Med Res. 2019;6(1):34.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC, Dean RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e011458.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):147–53.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Crombie I. Pocket guide to critical appraisal: Oxford. UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D, et al. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case report guideline development. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):46–51.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li BH, Yu ZJ, Wang CY, Zi H, Li XD, Wang XH, et al. A preliminary, multicenter, prospective and real world study on the hemostasis, coagulation, and safety of hemocoagulase bothrops atrox in patients undergoing transurethral bipolar plasmakinetic prostatectomy. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:1426.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Strom BL, Schinnar R, Hennessy S. Comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiology. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2012. p. 561–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma J, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(25):1–234.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schueler S, Schuetz GM, Dewey M. The revised QUADAS-2 tool. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(4):323.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoch JS, Dewa CS. An introduction to economic evaluation: what’s in a name? Can J Psychiatr. 2005;50(3):159–66.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson C, Vale L, Mugford M. Evidence based health economics: from effectiveness to efficiency in systematic review. UK: Oxford University Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ economic evaluation working party. BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275–83.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O’Brien BJ, Levine M, Heyland D. Users’ guides to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA. 1997;277(19):1552–7.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1–5.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges T. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in MEDLINE. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107(Pt 1):311–6.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Vardell E, Malloy M. Joanna briggs institute: an evidence-based practice database. Med Ref Serv Q. 2013;32(4):434–42.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannes K, Lockwood C. Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(7):1632–42.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. UK: Government Chief Social Researcher’s office; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NP, Mallett S, Geerlings MI, Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, et al. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):1–12.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Cote P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):280–6.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS, et al. PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):51–8.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–2.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonelli MR. Integrating evidence into clinical practice: an alternative to evidence-based approaches. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(3):248–56.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf SH. Evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines: an overview. Cancer Control. 2000;7(4):362–7.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Polit DF. Assessing measurement in health: beyond reliability and validity. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(11):1746–53.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research: appraising evidence for nursing practice, ninth edition: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, north American; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Bouter LM, Vet HC, Terwee CB. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20(2):105–13.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Swennen MH, van der Heijden GJ, Boeije HR, van Rheenen N, Verheul FJ, van der Graaf Y, et al. Doctors’ perceptions and use of evidence-based medicine: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Acad Med. 2013;88(9):1384–96.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher EJ. Systematic reviews: a logical methodological extension of evidence-based medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6(12):1255–60.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(8):450–5.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ. 1994;309(6955):648–51.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1271–8.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–34.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis DA, Taylor-Vaisey A. Translating guidelines into practice. A systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ. 1997;157(4):408–16.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely JG, Graboyes E, Paniello RC, Sequeira SM, Grindler DJ. Practical guide to understanding the need for clinical practice guidelines. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(1):1–7.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Browman GP, Levine MN, Mohide EA, Hayward RS, Pritchard KI, Gafni A, et al. The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(2):502–12.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy SL. From bench-top to chair-side: how scientific evidence is incorporated into clinical practice. Dent Mater. 2013;30(1):1–15.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapa D, Hartung MK, Mayberry LJ, Pintz C. Using preappraised evidence sources to guide practice decisions. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2013;25(5):234–43.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Eibling D, Fried M, Blitzer A, Postma G. Commentary on the role of expert opinion in developing evidence-based guidelines. Laryngoscope. 2013;124(2):355–7.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen YL, Yao L, Xiao XJ, Wang Q, Wang ZH, Liang FX, et al. Quality assessment of clinical guidelines in China: 1993–2010. Chin Med J. 2012;125(20):3660–4.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu J, Chen R, Wu S, Tang J, Leng G, Kunnamo I, et al. The quality of clinical practice guidelines in China: a systematic assessment. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(5):961–7.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Henig O, Yahav D, Leibovici L, Paul M. Guidelines for the treatment of pneumonia and urinary tract infections: evaluation of methodological quality using the appraisal of guidelines, research and evaluation ii instrument. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;19(12):1106–14.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlayen J, Aertgeerts B, Hannes K, Sermeus W, Ramaekers D. A systematic review of appraisal tools for clinical practice guidelines: multiple similarities and one common deficit. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17(3):235–42.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Collaboration A. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(1):18–23.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E839–42.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. The global rating scale complements the AGREE II in advancing the quality of practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(5):526–34.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049–51.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):719–25.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunguy-Desmarais GP. Evidence-based medicine should be based on science. S Afr Med J. 2013;103(10):700.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Muckart DJ. Evidence-based medicine – are we boiling the frog? S Afr Med J. 2013;103(7):447–8.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106(3):485–8.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, Group C. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285(15):1987–91.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(3):666–76.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis BH, Quigley M. Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:27.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Group Q-S. A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(10):1093–104.

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson JA, Schmitz D, Chung KC. How to practice evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(1):286–94.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Manchikanti L. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations. Pain Physician. 2008;11(2):161–86.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold C, Erkkila J, Crawford MJ. Shifting effects in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions: a new kind of performance bias? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012;126(5):307–14.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • link

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Copyright © All rights reserved. | Newsphere by AF themes.