The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
137
0
5

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 182 publications
(148 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
(65 reference statements)
1
137
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, quality score use in meta‐analyses remains controversial 31, 32, 33. As a result, study quality was incorporated by including quality components, such as study design, measurement of alcohol consumption and hypertension, adjustment for age, and sex‐specific RRs, in the inclusion and exclusion criteria and further by investigating potential heterogeneity in metaregression models and several subgroup analyses.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, quality score use in meta‐analyses remains controversial 31, 32, 33. As a result, study quality was incorporated by including quality components, such as study design, measurement of alcohol consumption and hypertension, adjustment for age, and sex‐specific RRs, in the inclusion and exclusion criteria and further by investigating potential heterogeneity in metaregression models and several subgroup analyses.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Correlation coefficient power was categorized as poor (<0.40), fair to good (0.40-0.75), and excellent (>0.75). A correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no reliability, whereas a value of 1 indicates excellent reliability (15). …”
Section: Reliabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each included study, we assessed the risk of bias as low, high, or unclear against ten important sources (domains) of bias by following a validated checklist for measuring bias in studies of risk factors (7)(8)(9). Following were the domains where risk of bias was assessed: (i) exposure definition, (ii) exposure assessments, (iii) blinding of assessors, (iv) reliability of assessments, (v) confounding, (vi) attrition, (vii) selective reporting, (viii) analysis methods in the study (research-specific bias), (ix) funding, and (x) conflict of interest.…”
Section: Search Selection and Data Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%