Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Export

@article{citeulike:2206628, abstract = {BACKGROUND: Assessing quality and susceptibility to bias is essential when interpreting primary research and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Tools for assessing quality in clinical trials are well-described but much less attention has been given to similar tools for observational epidemiological studies. METHODS: Tools were identified from a search of three electronic databases, bibliographies and an Internet search using Google. Two reviewers extracted data using a pre-piloted extraction form and strict inclusion criteria. Tool content was evaluated for domains potentially related to bias and was informed by the STROBE guidelines for reporting observational epidemiological studies. RESULTS: A total of 86 tools were reviewed, comprising 41 simple checklists, 12 checklists with additional summary judgements and 33 scales. The number of items ranged from 3 to 36 (mean 13.7). One-third of tools were designed for single use in a specific review and one-third for critical appraisal. Half of the tools provided development details, although most were proposed for future use in other contexts. Most tools included items for selection methods (92\%), measurement of study variables (86\%), design-specific sources of bias (86\%), control of confounding (78\%) and use of statistics (78\%); only 4\% addressed conflict of interest. The distribution and weighting of domains across tools was variable and inconsistent. CONCLUSION: A number of useful assessment tools have been identified by this report. Tools should be rigorously developed, evidence-based, valid, reliable and easy to use. There is a need to agree on critical elements for assessing susceptibility to bias in observational epidemiology and to develop appropriate evaluation tools.}, address = {Primary Care Genetics, General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, University of Cambridge and Public Health Genetics Unit, Strangeways Research Labs, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK. simon.sanderson@sri.cam.ac.uk}, author = {Sanderson, S. and Tatt, I. D. and Higgins, J. P.}, citeulike-article-id = {2206628}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dym018}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17470488}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://www.hubmed.org/display.cgi?uids=17470488}, doi = {10.1093/ije/dym018}, issn = {0300-5771}, journal = {Int J Epidemiol}, keywords = {assessment, epidemiology, observational\_studies, quality, review, strobe}, month = {June}, number = {3}, pages = {666--676}, posted-at = {2008-05-17 11:01:05}, priority = {5}, title = {Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography.}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dym018}, volume = {36}, year = {2007} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:2206628 L3 - citeulike-article-id:2206628 N2 - BACKGROUND: Assessing quality and susceptibility to bias is essential when interpreting primary research and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Tools for assessing quality in clinical trials are well-described but much less attention has been given to similar tools for observational epidemiological studies. METHODS: Tools were identified from a search of three electronic databases, bibliographies and an Internet search using Google. Two reviewers extracted data using a pre-piloted extraction form and strict inclusion criteria. Tool content was evaluated for domains potentially related to bias and was informed by the STROBE guidelines for reporting observational epidemiological studies. RESULTS: A total of 86 tools were reviewed, comprising 41 simple checklists, 12 checklists with additional summary judgements and 33 scales. The number of items ranged from 3 to 36 (mean 13.7). One-third of tools were designed for single use in a specific review and one-third for critical appraisal. Half of the tools provided development details, although most were proposed for future use in other contexts. Most tools included items for selection methods (92%), measurement of study variables (86%), design-specific sources of bias (86%), control of confounding (78%) and use of statistics (78%); only 4% addressed conflict of interest. The distribution and weighting of domains across tools was variable and inconsistent. CONCLUSION: A number of useful assessment tools have been identified by this report. Tools should be rigorously developed, evidence-based, valid, reliable and easy to use. There is a need to agree on critical elements for assessing susceptibility to bias in observational epidemiology and to develop appropriate evaluation tools. IS - 3 JF - Int J Epidemiol SN - 0300-5771 AD - Primary Care Genetics, General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, University of Cambridge and Public Health Genetics Unit, Strangeways Research Labs, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK. simon.sanderson@sri.cam.ac.uk EP - 676 TI - Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. VL - 36 SP - 666 KW - assessment KW - epidemiology KW - observational_studies KW - quality KW - review KW - strobe AU - Sanderson, S AU - Tatt, ID AU - Higgins, JP PY - 2007/06// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dym018 ER -