Suppr超能文献

一种用于评估观察性研究质量的工具的系统评价,这些研究旨在检查疾病的发病率或患病率以及风险因素。

A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases.

机构信息

Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Oct;63(10):1061-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.014.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To create a comprehensive evaluation of checklists and scales used to evaluate observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases.

STUDY DESIGN

We did a literature search of several databases to abstract format, content, development, and validation of the tools.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

目的

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。

研究设计

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验