Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies - NIHR Health ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of checklists and scales for assessing quality of non-randomised studiesAntzcakAudet Bours Bracken CASP Cameron Campos-Outcalt CarterChalmers Cho MSK CRG Coleridge Smith Cowley Cuddy Dawson-Saunders DownsDuRant Fowkes Friedenreich Gardner Glantz Gordis Greenhalgh GurmanGuyatt Hadorn Kay Koes Kreulen Kwakkel Lee LevineLinde MacMillan Maziak Meijman Melchart Miller Moncrieff MorleyMulrow Newcastle-Ottawa Nicolucci Reisch Salisbury Schechter Sheldon SpitzerTalley Thomas Vickers Vickers Weintraub Wilson Wingood WrightZaza de Oliveira de Vet Van der WindtCreation of groupsAscertainmentComparabilityBlindingFollow-upAnalysis of outcomeFIGURE 3 Top 60 star plots34pre-specified items in the follow-up domain (mostcommonly equality of length of follow-up betweengroups (88% of tools)).On average, about half of the items that we prespecifiedwere included in the tools (Figure 5).The domain with the best coverage wasblinding. The two core domains, creation ofgroups and comparability of groups, had onaverage 42 and 55% of possible pre-specifieditems, respectively.Six of the eight tools designed only for RCTs wereincluded in the top 60. These were the Chalmersscale 51 and its derivatives, 76,77 the two versions ofthe Maastricht Criteria List 70,71 and the JAMAUsers’ Guide checklist. 78,79 The Jadad 46 andMcMaster 80 tools did not include items in five ofthe six domains. In contrast, nine of the 23 toolsaimed at more than one study design 73,87,97–103and with specific items according to design, plustwo of the four tools designed for cohortstudies, 64,66 were included in the top 60 tools.
Health Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27100%80%60%Internal validity domainsOther domains40%20%0%#5 Creation of groups#6 Blinding#7 Ascertainment#8 Follow-up#9 Comparability#10 Analysis#1 Background#2 Sample#3 Interventions#4 Outcomes#11 Interpretation#12 PresentationFIGURE 4 Proportion of top 60 tools that missed each domain100%90%80%Internal validity domainsOther domain70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%#5 Creation of groups#6 Blinding#7 Ascertainment#8 Follow-up#9 Comparability#10 Analysis#1 Background#2 Sample#3 Interventions#4 Outcomes#11 Interpretation#12 PresentationFIGURE 5 Average proportion of pre-specified items met per domain (mean/maximum number of items)35© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2003. All rights reserved.
Page 1 and 2: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 3 and 4: Evaluating non-randomisedinterventi
Page 7: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 23 and 24: © Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 27 and 28: © Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 36 and 37: Evaluation of checklists and scales
Page 44 and 45: 32TABLE 8 Details of top 60 quality
Page 50 and 51: 38TABLE 10 Other domains: reporting
Page 56 and 57: Use of quality assessment in system
Page 62 and 63: Empirical estimates of bias associa
Page 76 and 77: Empirical evaluation of the ability
Page 82 and 83: 70TABLE 22 Comparison of concurrent
Page 86 and 87: 74TABLE 26 Comparison of methods of
Page 92 and 93: 80TABLE 33 Hypothetical example dem
Page 94 and 95: 82TABLE 34 Hypothetical example dem
Page 96 and 97:
Empirical evaluation of the ability
Page 98 and 99:
Empirical evaluation of the ability
Page 100 and 101:
Discussion and conclusions88histori
Page 102 and 103:
Discussion and conclusions90For exa
Page 104 and 105:
Discussion and conclusionsNon-rando
Page 107 and 108:
Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121:
Page 124 and 125:
Appendix 1data)) or (non-random$ or
Page 126 and 127:
Appendix 2AuthorYearENDARESourcePub
Page 128 and 129:
Appendix 2Author:Accession No:Endno
Page 130 and 131:
Appendix 20 0 00Additional outcomes
Page 132 and 133:
Appendix 2Endnote NoWas CMA conside
Page 134 and 135:
122AuthorOrigin aModified toolTool
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Appendix 4136DuRant, 1994 99The typ
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
© Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185:
Page 188 and 189:
Health Technology Assessment Progra
Page 190:
Health Technology Assessment Progra
show all

Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies - NIHR Health ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?