Wong William C W, Cheung Catherine S K, Hart Graham J
Department of General Practice, 200 Berkeley Street, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008 Nov 17;5:23. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-5-23.
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.
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.
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.
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.
基于对男男性行为者中艾滋病毒流行率及艾滋病毒传播风险因素的观察性和分析性研究进行严格评估的系统评价，对于医疗保健决策和规划非常有用。然而，由于可用于观察性和分析性研究的质量评估工具尚不完善，这种评估尤其困难。
我们回顾了现有的用于观察性研究系统评价的质量评估工具，并制定了一份简明的质量评估清单，以帮助规范有关研究质量的决策，同时仔细考虑外部和内部效度等问题。
该清单的试行版基于流行病学原理、研究设计综述以及现有的观察性研究评估清单而制定。观察性研究系统评价质量评估工具（QATSO）评分包括五个项目：外部效度（1项）、报告（2项）、偏倚（1项）和混杂因素（1项）。我们征求了专家意见，并在符合系统评价纳入标准的手稿上进行了测试。与所有评估量表一样，QATSO可能会过度简化和概括信息，但它具有包容性、使用简单且实用，并且能够实现论文之间的可比性。
开发了一种特定工具，使研究人员能够评估和指导观察性研究的质量，并且未来可针对类似研究进行修改。
