Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Oct;63(10):1061-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.014.
To create a comprehensive evaluation of checklists and scales used to evaluate observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases.
We did a literature search of several databases to abstract format, content, development, and validation of the tools.
We identified 46 scales and 51 checklists. Forty-seven of these tools were created for therapeutic studies, 48 for risk factors, and 5 for incidence studies. Forty-seven percent were modifications of previously published peer-reviewed appraisals, 18% were developed based on methodological standards, and 35% did not report development. Twenty-two percent reported reliability and 10% the validation procedure. Tools did not discriminate poor reporting vs. methodological quality of studies or external vs. internal validity; 35% categorize quality by the presence of predefined major flaws in design or by total score from the scale. Level of evidence was proposed in 22% of the tools by criteria of causality or internal validity of the studies. Evaluation required different degrees of subjectivity.
Format, length, and content varied substantially across available checklists and scales. Development, validation, and reliability were not consistently reported. Transparent objective quality assessments should be developed in the future.
对用于评估疾病发病率或患病率及危险因素的观察性研究的检查表和量表进行综合评价。
我们对多个数据库进行了文献检索,以提取工具的格式、内容、开发和验证情况。
我们共确定了 46 个量表和 51 个检查表。其中 47 个工具用于治疗研究,48 个用于危险因素研究,5 个用于发病率研究。这些工具中有 47%是先前发表的同行评议评估的修改版,18%是基于方法学标准开发的,35%未报告开发情况。22%报告了可靠性,10%报告了验证程序。这些工具没有区分报告质量差与研究方法质量差,或内部与外部有效性;35%通过设计中存在预设的重大缺陷或量表的总分来对质量进行分类。22%的工具通过研究的因果关系或内部有效性标准提出了证据水平。评估需要不同程度的主观性。
现有的检查表和量表在格式、长度和内容上差异很大。开发、验证和可靠性并未得到一致报告。未来应制定透明的客观质量评估方法。