AMSTAR - Assessing the Methodological Quality of ...



|Tool Name |Tool Description |Link to article/ tool PDF |Validation Process |

|The TREND (Transparent |A 22-item checklist developed to guide |Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., |Has information on Information on validated instruments |

|Reporting of Evaluations with |standardized reporting of non randomized |&TRENDGroup. (2004). Improving the reporting quality |such as psychometric and biometric properties but does not |

|Nonrandomized Designs) |controlled trials. It complements the |of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public |state if the TREND statement is validated itself |

|Statement |CONSORT statement which was developed |health interventions: TheTRENDstatement. American | |

| |for RCTs. |Journal of Public Health, 94, 361-366. | |

| | | | |

|Newcastle-Ottawa Scale |Developed to assess the quality of |Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The |The authors of NOS state that the validity assessment of |

| |nonrandomised studies with its design, |Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality|the scale is under development. |

| |content and ease of use directed to the |of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis. | |

| |task of incorporating the quality | |

| |assessments in the interpretation of |en.pdf | |

| |meta-analytic results. It allocates a | | |

| |maximum of nine stars, for quality of | | |

| |selection, comparability, exposure and | | |

| |outcome of study participants. | | |

|Quality Assessment Tool For |This tool was developed by The Effective |Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality |The validation process involved assessing the instrument's |

|Quantitative Studies |Public Health Practice Project for use in|Assessment Tool 2003. |content and categories for clarity, completeness and |

|The Effective Public Health |public health, and can be applied to |, and an overall comparison with similar types of |

|Practice Project |articles of any public health topic area.|I%20BPworkshop/PHRED%20Criteria%20Tool%202003.pdf |tools. |

| |It consists of seven steps. | | |

|Checklist for Measuring |Provides both an overall score for study |Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a |The checklist was revised and tested by comparing the |

|Quality- Downs and Black |quality and a numeric score out of a |checklist for the assessment of the methodological |Quality Index (total score) with the total score obtained |

| |possible 30 points. It has five sections.|quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies |using an existing validated checklist (Standards of |

| |Administration of the tool can happen |of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community |Reporting Trials Group. A proposal for structured reporting|

| |either within a systematic review |Health 1998; 52:377–84. |of randomised controlled trails. JAMA 1994; 272:1926–31.) |

| |process, or as a quality assessment tool | | |

| |for individual articles. | | |

|GATE (Graphic Appraisal Tool |A visual framework that illustrates the |Jackson R, Ameratunga S, Broad J, Connor J, Lethaby A,|Not Validated |

|for Epidemiology) |generic design of all epidemiologic |Robb G, et al. The GATE frame: critical appraisal with| |

| |studies. |pictures. Evid Based Med 2006;11: 35-8. | |

| | | |

| | |cs/gateframe.pdf (pdf) | |

|CriSTal Checklist |Evaluates the quality of various research|Checklist for Appraising an Information Needs analysis|Not stated |

| |designs, including appraising a user |: | |

| |study or appraising information needs | | |

| |analysis. |Checklist for Appraising a User Study : | |

| | | | |

|ReLIANT ( Readers guide to the |Aimed at appraising published reports of |Koufogiannakis, D., Booth, A. & Brettle, A. ReLIANT: |Not stated |

|Literature on Interventions |educational and training interventions. |Readers’s guide to the Literature on Interventions | |

|Addressing the Need for | |Addressing the Need for education and Training. | |

|education and training) | |Library and Information Research 2006, 30, 44–51. | |

| | | | |

| | |(pdf) | |

|EBLIP Critical Appraisal |The EBLIP checklist for library |Booth, A. Eleven steps to EBLIP service. Health |Not stated |

|Checklist |research provides a thorough, generic |information and libraries journal, 2009, vol. 26, n° | |

| |list of questions that one would ask when|1, p. 81-84. | |

| |attempting to determine the validity, | Critical Appraisal | |

| |applicability and appropriateness of a |Checklist.pdf | |

| |study. | | |

|READER (Relevance, Education, |Represents a sequence of steps in the |Domhall M, READER: an acronym to aid critical reading |Not stated |

|Applicability, Discrimination, |assessment of general practice |by general practitioners. British Journal of General | |

|Evaluation and Reaction) |literature. It involves the evaluation |Practice, 1994, 44, 83-85. | |

|Critical Appraisal Tool |of the article using a scoring system | |

| |where at the end of the article, the |f/brjgenprac00035-0039.pdf | |

| |reader decides what to do with it | | |

|The STARD ( STAndards for the |Consists of a 25 item checklist and flow |Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, |Not stated |

|Reporting of Diagnostic |diagram that helps to determine the |Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD Statement for | |

|accuracy ) Checklist |accuracy and completeness of reporting of|reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation | |

| |studies of diagnostic accuracy. |and elaboration. Clin Chem 2003; 49:7–18. | |

| | | | |

|MINORS ( Methodological Index |A valid instrument consisting of 12 items|Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, |Followed the principles of scale construction outlined by: |

|for Non Randomized Studies) |designed to assess the methodological |Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized |Bland JM, Altman DG. Validating scales and indexes. BMJ |

|Tool |quality of non-randomized surgical |studies (minors): development and validation of a new |2002; 324: 606–7. |

| |studies. The first eight items are |instrument. Aust NZ J Surg. 2003; 73:712–716. | |

| |specifically for non-comparative studies.| |

| | |.2003.02748.x/pdf | |

|JBI-NOTARI ( Narrative, Opinion|Evaluates narrative, opinion and others |To use this tool registration with JBI is requires |Not stated |

|and Text Assessment and Review |textual evidence. However to use this | Evidence/JBI | |

|Instrument) Critical Appraisal |tool a login is required. |SUMARI (systematic review software) | |

|Tool | | | |

|Modified set of Russell and |A nine item checklist separated into |Russell C, Gregory D. Evaluation of qualitative |Not stated |

|Gregory’s criteria for |three themes (Finding validity, |research studies. Evid Based Nurs. 2003; 6:36-40. | |

|methodological soundness |description and application) | | |

|Quality of Reporting of |Comprises of a 33 item criteria and a |Tooth L, Ware R, Bain C, Purdie DM, and Dobson A. |Two raters independently tested the final checklist on a |

|Observational Longitudinal |flow diagram adapted from CONSORT. The |Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal |random selection of articles |

|Research |criteria represent two principal |research. Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 161(3):280-288. |describing observational longitudinal research |

| |categories: 1) aspects that could | |

| |possibly influence effect estimates and |ct | |

| |2) more descriptive or contextual | | |

| |elements | | |

|GRADE system |Classifies the quality of evidence in one|Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, |Not stated |

| |of four levels-high, moderate, low, and |Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus | |

| |very low. The GRADE system offers two |on rating quality of evidence and strength of | |

| |grades of recommendations: “strong” and |recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336:924-6. | |

| |“weak” | |

| | |ool=pubmed | |

|Agency for Healthcare Research |Panel of 5-8 experts from 13 chosen |Atkins D, Fink K, Slutsky J. Better information for |The Agency elected to emphasize broad, general expertise |

|and Quality (AHRQ) |centers convene and develop a topic's key|better health care: the Evidence-based Practice Center|among the EPCs rather than establishing centers |

|Evidence-based Practice Center |questions, provide advice on which types |program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and |specializing in a single content area, such as cardiology. |

|program |of studies to include or exclude, and |Quality. Ann Intern Med 2005 Jun 21; 142(12 Pt |This EPC is now examining whether scores calculated by |

| |suggest other analyses that may be |2):1035-1041. |using this instrument are associated with reported adverse |

| |useful. | |

| | |pdf |rates in other surgical and nonsurgical case series |

|Pengel scale |Specific to prospective studies. Six |Pengel LHM, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Refshauge KM. Acute|Not stated |

| |criteria are used to assess |low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis. | |

| |methodological quality. |BMJ. 2003; 327(7410):323. | |

| | | |

| | |/el-gp323.pdf | |

|Modified methodological quality|Consists of 2 checklists, one for studies|Shamliyan T. Kane RL, Ansari MT, Raman G, Berkman ND,|Conducted a pilot test of the checklists. The experts each |

|assessment tool which was |of incidence or prevalence and another |Grant M, Janes G, Magilione M, Moher D, Nasser M, |evaluated 10 articles to test reliability and discriminant |

|developed and based on existing|for risk factors. It has 6 items each |Robinson KA, Segal JB, Tsouros S. Criteria to assess |validity. Examined discriminant validity by testing the |

|assessment tools |that assess external validity. For |quality of observational studies evaluating the |hypothesis that our checklists can discriminate quality |

| |internal validity, the checklist of |incidence, prevalence and risk factors of chronic |across studies and discriminate reporting vs. |

| |incidence has 5 items and the risk factor|diseases. In. 2009. |methodological quality |

| |checklist has 13 items | |

| | |43561000301X | |

|Loney criteria for critical |Used by health professionals to |Loney PL, Chambers LW, Bennett KJ, Roberts JG, |Not stated |

|appraisal of research articles |critically appraise research articles |Stratford PW. Critical appraisal of the health | |

|on prevalence of disease |that estimate the prevalence or incidence|research literature: prevalence or incidence of a | |

| |of a disease or health problem. |health problem. Chronic Dis Can 1998; 19(4): 170–176. | |

|Quality Assessment for |Assesses the quality of diagnostic |Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The |Validation process includes piloting the tool on a small |

|Diagnostic Accuracy Studies |accuracy studies included in systematic |development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality |sample of published studies, focusing on the assessment of |

|(QUADAS) |reviews |assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included |the consistency and reliability of the tool. It is also |

| | |in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; |piloted in a number of diagnostic reviews. Regression |

| | |3:25. |analyses are used to investigate associations between study|

| | | and estimates of diagnostic accuracy in |

| | |5.pdf |primary studies. |

|QUADAS-2 |QUADAS-2 is based on user feedback from |Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME et al (2011) |Not stated |

| |the initial tool developed in 2003. It is|QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of| |

| |made up of four domains namely and |diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med | |

| |applied in 4 phases |155:529–536 | |

| | | | |

|STROBE Checklist (Strengthening|Consists of a checklist of 22 items, |Von Elm, E. et al. The strengthening the reporting of |The generalisability (external validity) of the study |

|the reporting of observational |which relate to the title, abstract, |observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) |results was discussed |

|studies in epidemiology) |introduction, methods, results, and |statement: guidelines for reporting observational | |

| |discussion sections of articles. Eighteen|studies. Lancet 370, 1453–1457 (2007). | |

| |items are common to cohort studies, | |

| |case–control studies, and cross-sectional|lstudies-lancet-2007.pdf | |

| |studies, and 4 are specific to each of | | |

| |the 3 study designs. | | |

|RoBANS (Risk of Bias Assessment|Contains 6 domains with scores of "low", | it is Validated |

|tool for Non-randomized |"high" or "unclear". It is harmonized |k-bias-assessment-tool-non-randomized-studies-robans-d| |

|Studies) |with the Cochrane’s RoB tool and GRADE, |evelopment-and-validation-ne | |

| |and can be incorporated into RevMan and | | |

| |GRADEpro. | | |

|Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for |An extension of the current Cohrane risk | stated |

|non-randomized studies |of bias tool. |ploads/Ch13_NRS.pdf | |

|A Scoring system for Mixed |A new form of literature review has |Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A |Not Validated |

|Methods Research and Mixed |emerged, Mixed Studies Review. These |scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, | |

|Studies Reviews |Assesses Qualitative (6 items), |and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative| |

| |Quantitative experimental (3 items), |and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies | |

| |Quantitative observational (3 items) and |Reviews. IInternational Journal of Nursing Studies. | |

| |Mixed Methods (3 items). |2009 Apr; 46 (4):529-46. | |

| | | | |

|The iCAHE Guideline Checklist |Consists of 14 questions and can be used | stated |

| |either as a checklist or a total score. |CH/iCAHE_guideline_checklist.pdf | |

| |It provides clinicians with a quick way | | |

| |of appraising the quality of a clinical | | |

| |guideline. | | |

|The Appraisal of Guidelines for|Consists of 23 items. It assesses the |AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an |Face, construct and criterion validity were measured. |

|Research & Evaluation (AGREE II|quality of the guidelines, provides a |international appraisal instrument for assessing the |Attitudes about the instrument and user guide were |

|) Instrument |methodological strategy for the |quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE |collected by questionnaire. Assessments of criterion |

| |development of guidelines; and aims to |project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb; 12(1):18-23. |validity were assessed by calculating the Kendall’s tau B |

| |inform what information and how | |rank correlation coefficients between the appraisers’ |

| |information ought to be reported in | |domains scores and the overall assessment scores |

| |guidelines. | | |

|Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) |

|CASP: Cohort Studies |Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP):|CASP, NHS. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP):|Not stated |

| |Cohort Studies is a methodological |appraisal tools. Public Health Resource Unit, NHS | |

| |checklist which provides key criteria |2003. | |

| |relevant to cohort studies | | |

|CASP: Economic Evaluation |Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP):|Drummond MF, Stoddart+ GL, Torrance GW. Methods for |Not stated |

|Studies |Economic Evaluation Studies is a |the economic evaluation of health care programmes. | |

| |methodological checklist which provides |Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. | |

| |key criteria relevant to economic | Evaluations | |

| |studies. |10 Questions.pdf | |

|CASP: Diagnostic Test Studies |Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP):|Jaesche R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Users’ guides to the|Not stated |

| |Diagnostic Test Studies is a |medical literature, VI. How to use an article about a | |

| |methodological checklist which provides |diagnostic test. JAMA 1994; 271 (5): 389-391 | |

| |key criteria relevant to diagnostic | Tests 12 | |

| |studies. |Questions.pdf | |

|CASP: Case Control Studies |Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP):| Control 11 |Not stated |

| |Case Control Studies is a methodological |Questions.pdf | |

| |checklist which provides key criteria | | |

| |relevant to case control studies. | | |

|CASP: Qualitative Research |Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP):| Appraisal |Not stated |

| |Qualitative Research is a methodological |Tool.pdf (pdf) | |

| |checklist which provides key criteria | | |

| |relevant to qualitative research studies.| | |

|CASP: Systematic Reviews |Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP):|Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Users’ guides to the |Not stated |

| |Systematic Reviews is a methodological |medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA | |

| |checklist which provides key criteria |1994; 272 (17): 1367-1371 | |

| |relevant to systematic reviews. | |

| | |0Tool.pdf | |

|Therapy Critical Appraisal Worksheet |

|Therapy CA Worksheet |Therapy Critical Appraisal Worksheet is a|Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. |Not stated |

| |methodological checklist which provides |Evidence based medicine. How to practice and teach it.| |

| |key criteria relevant to therapy studies.|Fourth Edition. Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, | |

| | |2010. 0-702-03127-5, 312 pages | |

| | | |

| | |rapy | |

|Diagnostic CA Worksheet |Diagnostic Critical Appraisal Worksheet |Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. |Not stated |

| |is a methodological checklist which |Evidence based medicine. How to practice and teach it.| |

| |provides key criteria relevant to |Fourth Edition. Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, | |

| |diagnostic studies. |2010. 0-702-03127-5, 312 pages | |

| | | |

| | |gnosis | |

|Harm CA Worksheet |Harm Critical Appraisal Worksheet is a |Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. |Not stated |

| |methodological checklist which provides |Evidence based medicine. How to practice and teach it.| |

| |key criteria relevant to harm studies. |Fourth Edition. Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, | |

| | |2010. 0-702-03127-5, 312 pages | |

| | | |

| | |m | |

|Prognosis CA Worksheet |Prognosis Critical Appraisal Worksheet is|Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. |Not stated |

| |a methodological checklist which provides|Evidence based medicine. How to practice and teach it.| |

| |key criteria relevant to prognostic |Fourth Edition. Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, | |

| |studies. |2010. 0-702-03127-5, 312 pages | |

| | | |

| | |gnosis | |

|Systematic Review (of Therapy) |This methodological checklist provides |Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. |Not stated |

|Worksheet |key criteria relevant to systematic |Evidence based medicine. How to practice and teach it.| |

| |reviews. |Fourth Edition. Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, | |

| | |2010. 0-702-03127-5, 312 pages | |

| | | | |

|Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) |

|SIGN Checklist 1: Systematic |Identifies the study, the reviewer, the |Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines NetworkISBN 978 1 |Validity is based on the themes of credibility and |

|Reviews and Meta-analyses |guideline for which the paper is being |905813 81 0First published December 2011 |accountability i.e. the link between a set of guidelines |

| |considered as evidence, and the key | the scientific evidence must be explicit, and |

| |question(s) it is expected to address, |1.html |scientific and clinical evidence should take precedence |

| |Relates to the overall assessment of the | |over expert judgement. (Field 1990 |

| |paper | | ) |

| | | | |

| | | |All SIGN guidelines are considered for review three years |

| | | |after publication. |

| | | |(SIGN 50 handbook) |

|SIGN checklist 3: Cohort |Designed to answer questions of the type |Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines NetworkISBN 978 1 | |

|Studies |“What are the effects of this exposure?”,|905813 81 0First published December 2011 | |

| |It relates to studies that compare a | |

| |group of people with a particular |3.html | |

| |exposure with another group who either | | |

| |have not had the exposure, or have a | | |

| |different level of exposure. | | |

|SIGN Checklist 4: Case-control |Assesses studies that are generally used |Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines NetworkISBN 978 1 | |

|Studies |to assess the causes of a new problem, |905813 81 0First published December 2011 | |

| |but may also be useful for the evaluation| |

| |of population based interventions such as|4.html | |

| |screening. | | |

|SIGN Checklist 5: Diagnostic |It has 3 sections. It identifies the |Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines NetworkISBN 978 1 | |

|Studies |study and makes a series of statements |905813 81 0First published December 2011 | |

| |that are used to assess the internal | |

| |validity of the study and rates the |5.html | |

| |methodological quality of the study, | | |

| |based on the responses in the first | | |

| |section | | |

|McMaster Critical Review Form |

| Quantitative Studies |McMaster Critical Review Form for |Law M, Stewart D, Pollock N, et al. Guidelines for |Not stated |

| |Qualitative studies contains a generic |Critical Review Form: Quantitative Studies. Hamilton, | |

| |quantitative appraisal tool, accompanied |Ontario: McMaster University Publications, 1999:1–11. | |

| |by detailed guidelines for usage. | |

| | |w.pdf | |

|Qualitative Studies |McMaster Critical Review Form for |Letts, L., Wilkins, S., Law, M., Stewart, D., Bosch, |Not stated |

| |Qualitative studies contains a generic |J., & Westmorland, M. (2007). Critical Review | |

| |quantitative appraisal tool, accompanied |Form—Qualitative Studies (Version 2.0). Retrieved | |

| |by detailed guidelines for usage. |March 21, 2008 | |

| | | |

| | |w_version2.0.pdf | |

|Evaluation tool |

|Evaluation Tool for Mixed |The evaluation tool for mixed studies |Long AF, Godfrey M, Randall T, Brettle AJ and Grant MJ|Not stated |

|Methods Studies |allows appraisal of both the qualitative |(2002) Developing Evidence Based Social Care Policy | |

| |data collection and analysis component |and Practice. Part 3: Feasibility of Undertaking | |

| |and the wider quantitative research |Systematic Reviews in Social Care. Leeds: Nuffield | |

| |design. It is applicable where the aim of|Institute for Health | |

| |the qualitative component is to draw out | (htm) | |

| |the informants' understandings and | | |

| |perceptions | | |

|Evaluation Tool for |The Evaluation Tool for Quantitative |Long, A. & Godfrey, M. (2004), ‘‘An evaluation tool to|Not stated |

|Quantitative Research Studies |Studies contains six sub-sections: study |assess the quality of qualitative research | |

| |evaluative overview; study, setting and |Studies’’. International Journal of Social Research | |

| |sample; ethics; group comparability and |Methodology, Vol. 7, 181_/196. | |

| |outcome measurement; policy and practice | | |

| |implications; and other comments. | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download